Core and future problems with ESO and yearlong chapters.

Aertew

Don't get me wrong. I love the new zones and stories and all the work the developers did with the game. I'm glad they announced that they are FINALLY upgrading the servers. But.

Why does it feel empty. So we get a $40 story zone with 1 trial. And some dungeons. Then another zone with its own quest chain. I dont understand why they created companions as that removes the idea of players working together in a MMO. Not only that it heavily discourages it. I've played this game for a couple years now and I have met people that actually work together. I had met someone that literally walked me through a public dungeon to a skyshard because I asked in chat how to get to it.

People will grind out dolmens in groups like in Alik'r.

Then there's the problem with the pricing. $40 for a zone with a story line with 1 trial. Then $15 for 2 dungeons. Then $20 for a smaller zone.

I love the enviroment and all but where's the content. I feel like the dungeons should be put in with the expanion and smaller zone.

Also are we really not getting a class and instead getting the companion system?

Before people saying that a new class would be broken and they just re-use abilities. Compared to other MMO's like FF14 and WoW. ESO does not have alot of classes. Dragonknight, Warden, Nightblade, Templar, necromancer.

People think there arent any classes you can make? What about battlemage? Using elements to make rune traps and have AOE damage abilities? In elder scroll games like skyrim. It seems that the sorcerdr uses more conjuration skills.

What about beserker where they have abilities that use their Hp as a resource and the less *** they have the more damage they do?

What about a bard? Ive seen alot of people ask for that. It would actually be really unique.

What about spear weapons? Crossbows? Halberds? A 1-handed skill line?

Why not let magicka users use "stamina " weapons? Just either remove heavy attacks giving stamina/magicka or change it so that it gives you the resource that you have the most in, or you can pick through a passive ability in the weapon skill line?


Also I want everyone here to be honest with me. Would any of you play this game if it wasn't a Elder Scrolls game?

I dont want to discredit the devs. Rather this seems a problem with upper manangment. They didnt hire more devs. They didnt upgrade servers. They didnt listen to the community. They also focus heavily on crown crates and pre-orders rather than in-game content.

I want this to be a good MMO. I also want it to be a good elder scrolls game. I am extremely glad that the gates of oblivion seemingly wont have re-skinned dark anchors.

But that either than the map, the story and the new world events. I don't really dont see why they couldn't have told us if there was gonna be a new class or not? Or added a way to have magicks classes use melee weapons? Other elder scroll games let us. It's not like spell crafting where balancing can be a huge issue.

Mabye, like I said before. The higher ups are just managing the game poorly. Mabye it's that there isn't alot of communication so the players dont see the problems that happen behind the scenes. But it does worry me that they focus so much on crown crates. Making us pay $40 for the expanion, then $15 for the dungeons, and another $20 on the smaller zone. A whole $75. Sure if you sub it's only the $40 expansion. But your still paying around $15 a month except if you buy the sub bundles.

Even then. I want the dev team to be clearer. Are the upper managment just not allowing you to have freedom over the game? Why the heavy focus of making us pay for stuff while we get seemingly little in comparison?

Then there is the huge problem with the animation cancelling. Alot of people like it because it's unique. But rather even if it is unique. It's still a bug. And a harmful one in fact.


A user made a thread in which they talked abiut how repetive shield bashing can actually cause lag and disconnect you from the server.

If this is true. Animation cancelling can have the same idea. Players are throwing so many abilities out at once. This realistically could be the cause of the lag this entire time. Just fix the bug so we cant animation cancell. Or at least fix it in PTS and let testers see if thats a fix.

The whole idea of the game having animation cancelling mixed with the heavy compliant of server lag makes me think of two things.


1. The lag and many glitches in the game are rooted in the source code of the game. Either because it was rushed, or wasnt prepared to handle so many updates.

2. The people at ZOS just ignore it, and try to apply quick fixes that only add to the problem.

This game has potential, especially since it has the name of the elder scrolls, I'm glad the devs have used the large amount of lore to put in expansions and quests. But I hope the devs can fix core issues of the game. While then giving harder content to players that want it.

Of course all of my complaints might be solved in the Gates of Oblivion expansion. Though I hope that if gates of oblivion doesnt fix alot. I just hope the devs some core problems like.

1. Server lag and animation cancelling
2. Lack of challenging content for players that want it.
3. Melee weapon for magicka users
4. More unique classes that could be added, such as
A. battle mage that focuses on AOE and single target DOTS.
B. a beserker that might use their health as a resource and gains bonus damage effects while low on health.
And finally
5. Please. If you are gonna adverise cosmetics, crown crates and pre-orders heavily. Please also listen to the community and add things they might want. If you dont think it will work. Put it in PTS and see how people react.

Sorry for the long rant. I feel like this should be said and some of these ideas I have had for a while and wanted to talk about.

Thanks for all the work you guys, the developers, did with creating the Elder Scrolls Online.

Iccotak

ESO and WoW classes are not equivalent to each other - Classes in ESO work very differently from WoW

Iccotak

But overall I do agree that ZOS needs to re-think prices and what you are getting for your buck.
Paying $40-$60 for an ESO Chapter vs a WoW Expansion, plus what you get with a subscription, is worth a discussion

---

As for Companions I’m actually interested in the idea since they’re using this feature to focus on a couple of things.

1) In-Depth dialogue, branching choices, and relationship building
2) Easing players into group content

In-depth character interaction has been requested for a long time and now we get it with these two characters. I can see why they did two for now - quality vs quantity.

I could definitely see two players getting into early dungeons with help from companions. Getting them more comfortable with that kind of content.

I appreciate ZOS experimenting and doing something new instead of yet another class - granted I do look forward to a possible “Sword & Rune” skill line.
———————————————————

Would I like more content in these Chapters and “Year Long Stories”? Absolutely.

I’d prefer 3 zones instead of two and like I’ve said many many many times I’d like a veteran mode for Main Story Bosses.

BUT They finally addressed my issue with the start of characters in chapters. Now I can choose from the start.
Hopefully we’re still a prisoner in the new tutorial as that’s classic Elder Scrolls.

ZOS did say this would be a year of fixing and support.

I would also urge caution to those making comparisons to WoW.

1) Blizzard just plainly has more resources. As the king of MMOs for 15 years, with a required Subscription, and the backing of Activision - WoW just has ALOT more consistent income and resources that they can pour into each expansion in comparison to ESO.

Keep in mind ZOS just recently got Microsoft backing but even that has not taken affect yet.

2) WoW, in many places, has an issue Quantity but a lack of consistent Quality - this is very evident in their side quests as well as creating Systems which are abandoned in two years with the release of the next expansion.
This is why I like ESOs approach to implementing permanent features that get expanded on in the future.
———————————————————

TheImperfect

As someone who doesn't get to play much at peak times of day when there's lots of people on or visiting less travelled zones, I appreciate the help companions might provide.

Iccotak

On the note of Pricing and Features of Chapters as well as PvE/PvP - I think that every chapter and story dlc should introduce at least 1 Battleground arena, meaning a minimum of two a year.

It's using the assets that were used for the chapter (so less work) it gives something to PvP players, and it better justifies the price tag on Chapters and Story DLCs.

the last time a new one was added was two years ago for the Murkmire dlc

asuitandtyb14_ESO

I disagree with this one statement: "Blizzard just plainly has more resources. As the king of MMOs for 15 years, with a required Subscription, and the backing of Activision - WoW just has ALOT more consistent income and resources that they can pour into each expansion in comparison to ESO".

Zeni charges the same price for expansion that Blizzard does, with one notable variable: Blizzard expansions last a little over two years. They both have the same priced subscriptions (Before you screech that ESO is free-to-play, no it's not. A minority will, but most will get the subscription, and pretty much everyone strongly recommends it to newcomers). Additionally, Zeni puts all of the cosmetics and mounts in a store lottery, which Blizzard does not.

To summarize; they both charge the same subscription, they both charge the same for an expansion, but Zeni's lasts half as long, and Zeni has a massive lottery income.

I lot of people like to say that ESO is a top three MMO, but almost in the same breath they like to think that they are this almost indie-esque underdog to WoW. You can't have it both ways. If ESO is a top three mmo, it can pull in the money of a top three mmo, and it should reflect that in the content that it charges you for, and which is an equivalent asking price that the competitors have.

Iccotak

asuitandtyb14_ESO wrote: »

I disagree with this one statement: "Blizzard just plainly has more resources. As the king of MMOs for 15 years, with a required Subscription, and the backing of Activision - WoW just has ALOT more consistent income and resources that they can pour into each expansion in comparison to ESO".

Zeni charges the same price for expansion that Blizzard does, with one notable variable: Blizzard expansions last a little over two years. They both have the same priced subscriptions (Before you screech that ESO is free-to-play, no it's not. A minority will, but most will get the subscription, and pretty much everyone strongly recommends it to newcomers). Additionally, Zeni puts all of the cosmetics and mounts in a store lottery, which Blizzard does not.

To summarize; they both charge the same subscription, they both charge the same for an expansion, but Zeni's lasts half as long, and Zeni has a massive lottery income.

I lot of people like to say that ESO is a top three MMO, but almost in the same breath they like to think that they are this almost indie-esque underdog to WoW. You can't have it both ways. If ESO is a top three mmo, it can pull in the money of a top three mmo, and it should reflect that in the content that it charges you for, and which is an equivalent asking price that the competitors have.

According to different lists with current data ESO is in the top 6, not 3: https://mmo-population.com/list

Don't get me wrong I do think that ESO should be putting out more content for the amount they charge as a B2P MMO but I think that people underestimate just how much money WoW has behind it as is evident with team, content output, and marketing (also keep in mind that WoW made Modern Day Blizzard).

Also my other point being that WoW has an overabundance of content that I would file under poor quality, so while it may have alot of 'content' that doesn't necessarily make it good content. I like that ESO has a better balance of quality vs quantity imo
(WoW side quests made me quit the game - anytime I think about trying it I remember the painful side quest experiences)

With that said I would reiterate that ZOS should be doing more content in the year and that the current content layout for the year is breaking down - because (WoW junk aside) ESO is effectively taking one expansion and stretching it out over the course of a 2 quarters to a year. I would not have much of a problem with this if we got 3 zones instead of two along with dungeons & arenas in the Story DLCs while the Chapter got a Trial. (dungeon and trial integration could be done better)
Also more Battlegrounds like I said previously.

Ideal Breakdown
Q1: Prologue + Dungeons x2
Q2: Chapter + Battleground(s) + Trial + New Features (minimum of 1-2)
Q3: Zone + Battleground(s) + Dungeons x2
Q3: Zone + Battleground(s) + Trial - or - Dungeons x2

I think ZOS need to revaluate that many people are not invested in their story because the story is not really part of the endgame content. (This is where I give WoW points because they get both their Casual and Endgame players invested in the story by making their Villains memorable boss fights)

BUT after the Necromancer balancing nightmare it has led me to appreciate that ZOS actually puts in effort to balance and maintain new features instead of abandoning them like WoW does at the end of the expansion (another mark against WoW content design)

on a side note: ESO Seriously needs to work on their marketing because this reveal was not well presented - Example most of the relevant info for the New Companions Feature wasn't in the presentation but instead found in articles which I had to post in a separate thread.
It's another one of those things that I think Microsoft could review.

asuitandtyb14_ESO

Iccotak wrote: »

asuitandtyb14_ESO wrote: »

I disagree with this one statement: "Blizzard just plainly has more resources. As the king of MMOs for 15 years, with a required Subscription, and the backing of Activision - WoW just has ALOT more consistent income and resources that they can pour into each expansion in comparison to ESO".

Zeni charges the same price for expansion that Blizzard does, with one notable variable: Blizzard expansions last a little over two years. They both have the same priced subscriptions (Before you screech that ESO is free-to-play, no it's not. A minority will, but most will get the subscription, and pretty much everyone strongly recommends it to newcomers). Additionally, Zeni puts all of the cosmetics and mounts in a store lottery, which Blizzard does not.

To summarize; they both charge the same subscription, they both charge the same for an expansion, but Zeni's lasts half as long, and Zeni has a massive lottery income.

I lot of people like to say that ESO is a top three MMO, but almost in the same breath they like to think that they are this almost indie-esque underdog to WoW. You can't have it both ways. If ESO is a top three mmo, it can pull in the money of a top three mmo, and it should reflect that in the content that it charges you for, and which is an equivalent asking price that the competitors have.

According to different lists with current data ESO is in the top 6, not 3: https://mmo-population.com/list

Don't get me wrong I do think that ESO should be putting out more content for the amount they charge as a B2P MMO but I think that people underestimate just how much money WoW has behind it as is evident with team, content output, and marketing (also keep in mind that WoW made Modern Day Blizzard).

Also my other point being that WoW has an overabundance of content that I would file under poor quality, so while it may have alot of 'content' that doesn't necessarily make it good content. I like that ESO has a better balance of quality vs quantity imo
(WoW side quests made me quit the game - anytime I think about trying it I remember the painful side quest experiences)

With that said I would reiterate that ZOS should be doing more content in the year and that the current content layout for the year is breaking down - because (WoW junk aside) ESO is effectively taking one expansion and stretching it out over the course of a 2 quarters to a year. I would not have much of a problem with this if we got 3 zones instead of two along with dungeons & arenas in the Story DLCs while the Chapter got a Trial. (dungeon and trial integration could be done better)
Also more Battlegrounds like I said previously.

Ideal Breakdown
Q1: Prologue + Dungeons x2
Q2: Chapter + Battleground(s) + Trial + New Features (minimum of 1-2)
Q3: Zone + Battleground(s) + Dungeons x2
Q3: Zone + Battleground(s) + Trial - or - Dungeons x2

I think ZOS need to revaluate that many people are not invested in their story because the story is not really part of the endgame content. (This is where I give WoW points because they get both their Casual and Endgame players invested in the story by making their Villains memorable boss fights)

BUT after the Necromancer balancing nightmare it has led me to appreciate that ZOS actually puts in effort to balance and maintain new features instead of abandoning them like WoW does at the end of the expansion (another mark against WoW content design)

on a side note: ESO Seriously needs to work on their marketing because this reveal was not well presented - Example most of the relevant info for the New Companions Feature wasn't in the presentation but instead found in articles which I had to post in a separate thread.
It's another one of those things that I think Microsoft could review.

I think we're both ultimately coming to the same place; for 40 dollars, we should see all the "year of X" content contained in that price, AND it should be 2 full zones minimum. It's not even that right now, that second "zone" is a mini zone at best. I agree that three full zones should be included. That would be value for money. Otherwise, this is currently a $20 DLC overvalued by double. I already got burnt on Greymoor (and off topic Beyond Light), but I am not repeating that mistake.

Grandchamp1989

I get what you're coming from..

The year long questline has run its course for me aswell..

The pros of doing that is they can go more in-depth with things.
Except... They aren't really adding much to the rich lore?.. We could've learned so much more about the Nords, culture, 1st and 2nd Era etc.. Instead it was just "Dead things are coming, we have to stop it, but not really... yet."

With Greymoor what I saw was a lot of prolonging and dragging out quests and reveals for the sake of it.
Empty overland delves and crypts and a lot of barren cliffs...

If you don't have more to tell... Stop. Finish the story while it's interesting.

Markarth had a much better pace than Greymoor and was more condence...
But while Blackreach was so beautiful overland was so barren and.. boring?

Focusing all your energy in a year long project can be fantastic if you got the story, time, ressources and creativity to build around it..

If you don't it's better to tell a good 3 hour story than a bland 7 hour story...

I will give the art team props though, when you give them the time they can make some stunning visiuals!
(Blackreach, Markarth, all of Summerset etc). And that's the thing.. I think they're trying to do too much at once..

As for Companions I'm a bit split on it.

On one hand Elder Scrolls is at its core Single player genre/game and most of its fanbase is that.. Singleplayer/solo oriented.
This shows Zos actually knows its playerbase..

On the other hand you have to respect ESO is an MMO and balance should be around playing with others and many log in to play with friends and family.

For me personly I would love to see companions in overland (if it doesn't tank performance).
And leave your companions at home for group content (Dungeons & trials + PVP).
Then I would add a story mode for Dungeons (where you can que up Solo and bring your companion) to do them on your own time.

Iccotak

Also as for price comparison keep in mind that many ESO players just purchase the dlcs separately rather than Chapter and ESO+. That’s four separate purchases for the year adding upwards to between $90-$110.

While the full experience of a WoW expansion is $40-$60 expansion AND the subscription for two years. ($260)
which is between $300-$320

Some people are paying equivalent to that in ESO (crown shop aside) but it isn’t as consistent or reliable as WoWs numbers are.

That said I don’t think $40 should pay for the whole year but my point being that the year should have more content.

Ryuvain

I'll be honest, I'm not buying this at all. No class or skill line and I don't care about the story focus. Gonna be a long year.

Only thing that might make me consider is mythics if they're cool enough. Sadly I loved the last two, Elsweyr and Greymoor because they were my favorite subjects: khajiit, dragons, vampires, and werewolves.

Nothing here makes me want it. I didn't care for the story ever since the teaser but held out hope for a class or skill line. Nope.

robertthebard

My information is a bit out of date, but the last I knew, WoW was running something like 11 million subs? How many subs here? Are we even close?

Iccotak

robertthebard wrote: »

My information is a bit out of date, but the last I knew, WoW was running something like 11 million subs? How many subs here? Are we even close?

well if we just use the player numbers on the site I listed in a previous comment. We have WoW retail plus WoW classic player populations then times that by 15 dollars for 12 months (though there are subscription choices let's stick with the standard)

Subscription
(3,229,409 + 923,123) x (15 X 12) = X
4,152,532 x 180 = X
747,455,760 = X

times that by 2(for two year expansion life cycle) = 1,494,911,520

Expansion (Let's assume that retail populations bought the expac upgrade)
3,229,409 x 40 = X
129,176,360 = X

2 Year Cycle = $1,624,087,880 (roughly)

this does not take into account other variables like if they bought the $60 version, what subscription options they're choosing, or how many of the classic population bought the expansion, etc. etc.

etchedpixels

Aertew wrote: »

1. The lag and many glitches in the game are rooted in the source code of the game. Either because it was rushed, or wasnt prepared to handle so many updates.

2. The people at ZOS just ignore it, and try to apply quick fixes that only add to the problem.

You've never I suspect worked on large old complex system code. The game is old. It was designed in a world where the numbers playing now were not imaginable. It seems to predate a lot of stuff considered routine today (like being able to cope with version skew for example). I doubt the "fixes" are "quick" either, but probably really tedious and difficult. It's like trying to fix a design problem in an aeroplane - without landing.

The bigger reality is that any new engine would have to be written and would presumably be an MMO engine revision of whatever is going to power the next elder scrolls game in 2030 or whenever it finally appears. So I can't see any of the really big issues buried in the core of the game getting fixed properly until then, and at that point if you have to rework everything for the new engine - would you not put ESO onto maintenance only (no new story etc) and launch something new ?

Aertew

Iccotak wrote: »

asuitandtyb14_ESO wrote: »

I disagree with this one statement: "Blizzard just plainly has more resources. As the king of MMOs for 15 years, with a required Subscription, and the backing of Activision - WoW just has ALOT more consistent income and resources that they can pour into each expansion in comparison to ESO".

Zeni charges the same price for expansion that Blizzard does, with one notable variable: Blizzard expansions last a little over two years. They both have the same priced subscriptions (Before you screech that ESO is free-to-play, no it's not. A minority will, but most will get the subscription, and pretty much everyone strongly recommends it to newcomers). Additionally, Zeni puts all of the cosmetics and mounts in a store lottery, which Blizzard does not.

To summarize; they both charge the same subscription, they both charge the same for an expansion, but Zeni's lasts half as long, and Zeni has a massive lottery income.

I lot of people like to say that ESO is a top three MMO, but almost in the same breath they like to think that they are this almost indie-esque underdog to WoW. You can't have it both ways. If ESO is a top three mmo, it can pull in the money of a top three mmo, and it should reflect that in the content that it charges you for, and which is an equivalent asking price that the competitors have.

According to different lists with current data ESO is in the top 6, not 3: https://mmo-population.com/list

Don't get me wrong I do think that ESO should be putting out more content for the amount they charge as a B2P MMO but I think that people underestimate just how much money WoW has behind it as is evident with team, content output, and marketing (also keep in mind that WoW made Modern Day Blizzard).

Also my other point being that WoW has an overabundance of content that I would file under poor quality, so while it may have alot of 'content' that doesn't necessarily make it good content. I like that ESO has a better balance of quality vs quantity imo
(WoW side quests made me quit the game - anytime I think about trying it I remember the painful side quest experiences)

With that said I would reiterate that ZOS should be doing more content in the year and that the current content layout for the year is breaking down - because (WoW junk aside) ESO is effectively taking one expansion and stretching it out over the course of a 2 quarters to a year. I would not have much of a problem with this if we got 3 zones instead of two along with dungeons & arenas in the Story DLCs while the Chapter got a Trial. (dungeon and trial integration could be done better)
Also more Battlegrounds like I said previously.

Ideal Breakdown
Q1: Prologue + Dungeons x2
Q2: Chapter + Battleground(s) + Trial + New Features (minimum of 1-2)
Q3: Zone + Battleground(s) + Dungeons x2
Q3: Zone + Battleground(s) + Trial - or - Dungeons x2

I think ZOS need to revaluate that many people are not invested in their story because the story is not really part of the endgame content. (This is where I give WoW points because they get both their Casual and Endgame players invested in the story by making their Villains memorable boss fights)

BUT after the Necromancer balancing nightmare it has led me to appreciate that ZOS actually puts in effort to balance and maintain new features instead of abandoning them like WoW does at the end of the expansion (another mark against WoW content design)

on a side note: ESO Seriously needs to work on their marketing because this reveal was not well presented - Example most of the relevant info for the New Companions Feature wasn't in the presentation but instead found in articles which I had to post in a separate thread.
It's another one of those things that I think Microsoft could review.

I didnt read much of anything but at the beggining the link u put is not a good source. It has Ashes of creation in number 26, a game that isnt even out, not even alpha. Also it has roblox. Pretty sure roblox isnt a MMO. But either than that even then ESO is top 6. Also i believe blizzard/activisoon did reveal how much they earn from WoW and un-suprisingly alot of there income came from microtransactions. And WoW barely has any compared to ESO. So imagine how much money ESO makes with so many microtransactions.

Aertew

Grandchamp1989 wrote: »

I get what you're coming from..

The year long questline has run its course for me aswell..

The pros of doing that is they can go more in-depth with things.
Except... They aren't really adding much to the rich lore?.. We could've learned so much more about the Nords, culture, 1st and 2nd Era etc.. Instead it was just "Dead things are coming, we have to stop it, but not really... yet."

With Greymoor what I saw was a lot of prolonging and dragging out quests and reveals for the sake of it.
Empty overland delves and crypts and a lot of barren cliffs...

If you don't have more to tell... Stop. Finish the story while it's interesting.

Markarth had a much better pace than Greymoor and was more condence...
But while Blackreach was so beautiful overland was so barren and.. boring?

Focusing all your energy in a year long project can be fantastic if you got the story, time, ressources and creativity to build around it..

If you don't it's better to tell a good 3 hour story than a bland 7 hour story...

I will give the art team props though, when you give them the time they can make some stunning visiuals!
(Blackreach, Markarth, all of Summerset etc). And that's the thing.. I think they're trying to do too much at once..

As for Companions I'm a bit split on it.

On one hand Elder Scrolls is at its core Single player genre/game and most of its fanbase is that.. Singleplayer/solo oriented.
This shows Zos actually knows its playerbase..

On the other hand you have to respect ESO is an MMO and balance should be around playing with others and many log in to play with friends and family.

For me personly I would love to see companions in overland (if it doesn't tank performance).
And leave your companions at home for group content (Dungeons & trials + PVP).
Then I would add a story mode for Dungeons (where you can que up Solo and bring your companion) to do them on your own time.

I also feel similar. I dont feel that bored of overland since there are alot of tree, animals, towns and roaming merchants. Though i havnt gotten to Greymoor yet so mabye its a greymoor only thing. I also do love how the enviroments look as well.

Aertew

Grandchamp1989 wrote: »

I get what you're coming from..

The year long questline has run its course for me aswell..

The pros of doing that is they can go more in-depth with things.
Except... They aren't really adding much to the rich lore?.. We could've learned so much more about the Nords, culture, 1st and 2nd Era etc.. Instead it was just "Dead things are coming, we have to stop it, but not really... yet."

They also NEVER released a DLC or expansion for bretons. I literally dont get it??? Same for wood elves.

We got 2 Khajit zones, 1 argonian and another one for the next expansion. High elves in summerset. Dark elves have Morrowind. Nords have greymoor, Orcs have Orsinuim?

Also bretons are kinda boring. The dev team just uses them as humans. Even though bretons are ment to be half elves and be pretty unique.

Starlight_Whisper

I am fine with prices for new zone and even dungeons. It's this year's chapter that I am questioning. I like group content so why would I like companions?

Aertew

etchedpixels wrote: »

Aertew wrote: »

1. The lag and many glitches in the game are rooted in the source code of the game. Either because it was rushed, or wasnt prepared to handle so many updates.

2. The people at ZOS just ignore it, and try to apply quick fixes that only add to the problem.

You've never I suspect worked on large old complex system code. The game is old. It was designed in a world where the numbers playing now were not imaginable. It seems to predate a lot of stuff considered routine today (like being able to cope with version skew for example). I doubt the "fixes" are "quick" either, but probably really tedious and difficult. It's like trying to fix a design problem in an aeroplane - without landing.

The bigger reality is that any new engine would have to be written and would presumably be an MMO engine revision of whatever is going to power the next elder scrolls game in 2030 or whenever it finally appears. So I can't see any of the really big issues buried in the core of the game getting fixed properly until then, and at that point if you have to rework everything for the new engine - would you not put ESO onto maintenance only (no new story etc) and launch something new ?

Alot of people have complained about the game being laggy and crashing. So yes I think alot of people would want them to fix the game a ton if it ment going on maintanance with no new content.

Also...

etchedpixels wrote: »

Aertew wrote: »

1. The lag and many glitches in the game are rooted in the source code of the game. Either because it was rushed, or wasnt prepared to handle so many updates.

2. The people at ZOS just ignore it, and try to apply quick fixes that only add to the problem.

You've never I suspect worked on large old complex system code. The game is old. It was designed in a world where the numbers playing now were not imaginable. It seems to predate a lot of stuff considered routine today (like being able to cope with version skew for example). I doubt the "fixes" are "quick" either, but probably really tedious and difficult. It's like trying to fix a design problem in an aeroplane - without landing.

You do realize ESO isnt that old? Only like 6 years?

OSRS has gone aroune 13 years. WoW is around 16. Even Black Desert online is around 6 years and is still going strong with no problems.

Like I said before. Either the base code for ESO was done badly. Or it wasnt ment to last long term.

Iccotak

Aertew wrote: »

etchedpixels wrote: »

Aertew wrote: »

1. The lag and many glitches in the game are rooted in the source code of the game. Either because it was rushed, or wasnt prepared to handle so many updates.

2. The people at ZOS just ignore it, and try to apply quick fixes that only add to the problem.

You've never I suspect worked on large old complex system code. The game is old. It was designed in a world where the numbers playing now were not imaginable. It seems to predate a lot of stuff considered routine today (like being able to cope with version skew for example). I doubt the "fixes" are "quick" either, but probably really tedious and difficult. It's like trying to fix a design problem in an aeroplane - without landing.

The bigger reality is that any new engine would have to be written and would presumably be an MMO engine revision of whatever is going to power the next elder scrolls game in 2030 or whenever it finally appears. So I can't see any of the really big issues buried in the core of the game getting fixed properly until then, and at that point if you have to rework everything for the new engine - would you not put ESO onto maintenance only (no new story etc) and launch something new ?

Alot of people have complained about the game being laggy and crashing. So yes I think alot of people would want them to fix the game a ton if it ment going on maintanance with no new content.

Also...

etchedpixels wrote: »

Aertew wrote: »

1. The lag and many glitches in the game are rooted in the source code of the game. Either because it was rushed, or wasnt prepared to handle so many updates.

2. The people at ZOS just ignore it, and try to apply quick fixes that only add to the problem.

You've never I suspect worked on large old complex system code. The game is old. It was designed in a world where the numbers playing now were not imaginable. It seems to predate a lot of stuff considered routine today (like being able to cope with version skew for example). I doubt the "fixes" are "quick" either, but probably really tedious and difficult. It's like trying to fix a design problem in an aeroplane - without landing.

You do realize ESO isnt that old? Only like 6 years?

OSRS has gone aroune 13 years. WoW is around 16. Even Black Desert online is around 6 years and is still going strong with no problems.

Like I said before. Either the base code for ESO was done badly. Or it wasnt ment to last long term.

ESO had been in development since Oblivion 🤦‍♂️ Yes it’s old

Iccotak

Aertew wrote: »

Grandchamp1989 wrote: »

I get what you're coming from..

The year long questline has run its course for me aswell..

The pros of doing that is they can go more in-depth with things.
Except... They aren't really adding much to the rich lore?.. We could've learned so much more about the Nords, culture, 1st and 2nd Era etc.. Instead it was just "Dead things are coming, we have to stop it, but not really... yet."

They also NEVER released a DLC or expansion for bretons. I literally dont get it??? Same for wood elves.

We got 2 Khajit zones, 1 argonian and another one for the next expansion. High elves in summerset. Dark elves have Morrowind. Nords have greymoor, Orcs have Orsinuim?

Also bretons are kinda boring. The dev team just uses them as humans. Even though bretons are ment to be half elves and be pretty unique.

All of Bretons homeland is in ESO the only expansion they could would either be leading to an opponent undiscovered region of Blackreach or Bretons clashing with a Daedric Plane (both of which could happen)

Starlock

Iccotak wrote: »

on a side note: ESO Seriously needs to work on their marketing because this reveal was not well presented - Example most of the relevant info for the New Companions Feature wasn't in the presentation but instead found in articles which I had to post in a separate thread.

Speculation: not much was presented because the feature is still undergoing a lot of active development. This may or may not be cause for concern, but considering how rough the Greymoor launch was and some of the issues with the other content expansions last year, I do wonder if putting the brakes on the content train would have been a wise call. Of course, the yearlong story idea grates against allowing the train to slow down. There will be pressure from upper management to get it done within that yearlong time constraint. Having read a number of horror stories about developer crunch, I sincerely hope that this isn't a major (or even a minor) problem for the development team. That can be another really serious human cost to trying to adhere to yearlong project deadlines.

WiseSky

I would never play a MMO that does not have all voice acted quests...

Just that alone leaves most MMO behind.

Grizzbeorn

Aertew wrote: »

I dont understand why they created companions as that removes the idea of players working together in a MMO. Not only that it heavily discourages it.

That is just a hyperbolic falsehood.
It doesn't remove anything, nor discourage anything.

It grants an OPTION. Many of the people who are going to use that option weren't ever going to take part in group activity, anyway, so it removes nothing from you, regardless of them being able to play a MMO, or if people like you had your way and solo-play was prohibited in a MMO.
There are still a huge number of players who are into group play. Whether solo-players are allowed to exist in the game or not, you aren't missing out.

Then there are lots of other people, such as myself, who do take part in group-play, but it isn't their sole focus. They don't ALWAYS want to group while they play.
But you would remove that option from them, because YOU think that an MMO should only be for group play.

There is room for both solo players and group players in a vast open-world "MMO." If there wasn't, then companies wouldn't design them that way.
Solo players do not affect your ability to play the game in a group, so why do you feel that everyone who plays a game needs to be forced to play the way you think they should?

WildRaptorX

The value of ESO plus is at an all time low because of their new business model.

We don’t get the major content release of the year, the proper DLC we get is small and attached to said major DLC release. The two dungeon DLC’s are nice. But it’s so hard to find a group who isn’t just rushing through. (Hopefully companions can help with this)

After my plus membership lapses I don’t think I will be renewing.

RedMuse

Aertew wrote: »

Grandchamp1989 wrote: »

I get what you're coming from..

The year long questline has run its course for me aswell..

The pros of doing that is they can go more in-depth with things.
Except... They aren't really adding much to the rich lore?.. We could've learned so much more about the Nords, culture, 1st and 2nd Era etc.. Instead it was just "Dead things are coming, we have to stop it, but not really... yet."

They also NEVER released a DLC or expansion for bretons. I literally dont get it??? Same for wood elves.

We got 2 Khajit zones, 1 argonian and another one for the next expansion. High elves in summerset. Dark elves have Morrowind. Nords have greymoor, Orcs have Orsinuim?

Also bretons are kinda boring. The dev team just uses them as humans. Even though bretons are ment to be half elves and be pretty unique.

Where would they put them? All of High Rock is filled out, so is all of Valenwood.

adriant1978

Aertew wrote: »

Then there is the huge problem with the animation cancelling. Alot of people like it because it's unique. But rather even if it is unique. It's still a bug. And a harmful one in fact.

It may have started out as a bug but it's a feature now, they balance the game (at least high end content) around it, and they will never remove it.

I say this as someone who also hates animation cancelling and struggles to do it, but you really have to let it go and move on.

etchedpixels

Aertew wrote: »

Alot of people have complained about the game being laggy and crashing. So yes I think alot of people would want them to fix the game a ton if it ment going on maintanance with no new content.

You are no talking about fixing it with really old code after a certain point, you are talking about rewriting it because that's easier than fixing it. The scale of work involved means you don't do that for one game, so nothing IMHO is going to happen until the new engine is out, released and driving a couple of new Bethesda solo games. I don't personally think the recent load of crash to desktop bugs are in the won't get fixed one. I'm not holding my breath for all the ancient long standing bugs with unlootable mobs, breaking quests, wrongly spawning spiders in clockwork, sunspire bugging out, flying people in blessed crucible and the infamous wayrest sewers door.

Some MMO's have done this level of work - BDO did (very pretty and fast loading - whatever the game itself may be like), and perhaps Zenimax needed to invest more in that over the years and didn't - who knows but them.

You do realize ESO isnt that old? Only like 6 years?

ESO was launched six and a chunk years ago, after multiple years of development, in part prototyped with engines that were available back then. ESO development started in 2007. So the design is actually 13-14 years old. In terms of software technology and understanding of how to build massively parallel interacting systems, ten years ago is prehistoric. Also remember that when they started out in 2007 they started from scratch in a world where MMOs were a lot smaller, the CPU/network balance of a PC was totally different and there was no big public pool of skills/knowledge about how to do this.

You see elements of the age and design not being for the same scale in things said, in game behaviour and in what happens with bugs. Obvious issues that are very user visible due to the old design

- Logins are not parallel hence the very slow login times (We know this they've provided updates in patch notes that they were working on fixing this but that seems to have paused in the later ones). Nobody today for the size we now know an MMO can get to would have made the original serial design decision.

- There is a current exploit (I'm not giving details for obvious reasons and it's mentioned in the U28 patch notes just as vaguely) related to some armour sets and skills combinations. In a modern design there is enough live patching or in-game data table downloading to live-fix such an issue. In ESO we have to wait for an update

- Every new update is a giant mega patch, long download and day of mayhem because updates are staged slowly not done incrementally every few days as you do with modern software development and the game doesn't appear to support any kind of version desync. Modern systems you can do stuff like push the new update to 10000 players, monitor the telemetry for problems, then push it a load more and so on.

- There appear to be no "chicken bits". When you have long cycles and reliability concerns you nowdays put new code in parallel with the old initially and which to use is selected from a set of server provided flags that let you "chicken out" of some of your updates. So for example when the ice staff animation started breaking everything you'd just flip the bit and turn it back off live. You often also have multiple paths for complex new code so you can switch around bugs.

Thus I'd bet someone a doughnut or two that a) ESO is going to continue to have some of the deep seated bugs and annoyances unaddressed (just like Skyrim has never been fixed) and b) ESO will not get an engine update until some time after Zenimax/Microsoft ship the next elder scrolls single player game if at all.

Things change and software implementations can't evolve fast enough so the old ones die, or become fossils (like runescape). The first "MMO" I played was text based and maxed at 36 users....

Greasytengu

Something ive brought up with my guildies is that having the story basically begin with the chapter and end with the DLC makes the big 40$ chapter feels less important than the free with ESO+ DLC.

I honestly thing that if they decide to continue with the year long storylines then they should start it with the DLC and end it with the chapter.

But if im being perfectly honest, I liked the Chapters and DLCs that were mostly self contained, but had one or two loose threads that get wrapped up later. I think most people will agree that the Storyline from Dark Brotherhood, to Wrothgar, to Morrowind, to Clockwork city to Summerset, felt better, and I think that is because everything from DB to CwC was basically stand alone with a few nuggets of information to make it fit together on a larger scale.

But the way things stand now, the last few chapters have just felt like long prologues.

Faulgor

Grandchamp1989 wrote: »

I get what you're coming from..

The year long questline has run its course for me aswell..

The pros of doing that is they can go more in-depth with things.
Except... They aren't really adding much to the rich lore?.. We could've learned so much more about the Nords, culture, 1st and 2nd Era etc.. Instead it was just "Dead things are coming, we have to stop it, but not really... yet."

It feels like the opposite - instead of going in-depth with one thing, they spread the whole thing out unnecessarily.
You thought Elsweyr was about Khajiit? Oh no, it was about Necromancers, Dragons, Imperial incursion, the Dragonguard, and Khajiit.
Greymoor? Vampires, Werewolves, Reachmen, Witches, and I guess some Nords?
And the next chapter, which should have been focused on Imperials, can't even get that much, being spread over Cyrodiil and Black Marsh. And the Deadlands, of course. And there will probably be more.

They are moving the target so much that everything remains superficial. Which is why the small-scale but focused DLCs like Wrothgar and Murkmire still remain the best, imo. And this year-long-story approach guarantees that we will never see something like that again.

Aertew

Iccotak wrote: »

Aertew wrote: »

etchedpixels wrote: »

Aertew wrote: »

1. The lag and many glitches in the game are rooted in the source code of the game. Either because it was rushed, or wasnt prepared to handle so many updates.

2. The people at ZOS just ignore it, and try to apply quick fixes that only add to the problem.

You've never I suspect worked on large old complex system code. The game is old. It was designed in a world where the numbers playing now were not imaginable. It seems to predate a lot of stuff considered routine today (like being able to cope with version skew for example). I doubt the "fixes" are "quick" either, but probably really tedious and difficult. It's like trying to fix a design problem in an aeroplane - without landing.

The bigger reality is that any new engine would have to be written and would presumably be an MMO engine revision of whatever is going to power the next elder scrolls game in 2030 or whenever it finally appears. So I can't see any of the really big issues buried in the core of the game getting fixed properly until then, and at that point if you have to rework everything for the new engine - would you not put ESO onto maintenance only (no new story etc) and launch something new ?

Alot of people have complained about the game being laggy and crashing. So yes I think alot of people would want them to fix the game a ton if it ment going on maintanance with no new content.

Also...

etchedpixels wrote: »

Aertew wrote: »

1. The lag and many glitches in the game are rooted in the source code of the game. Either because it was rushed, or wasnt prepared to handle so many updates.

2. The people at ZOS just ignore it, and try to apply quick fixes that only add to the problem.

You've never I suspect worked on large old complex system code. The game is old. It was designed in a world where the numbers playing now were not imaginable. It seems to predate a lot of stuff considered routine today (like being able to cope with version skew for example). I doubt the "fixes" are "quick" either, but probably really tedious and difficult. It's like trying to fix a design problem in an aeroplane - without landing.

You do realize ESO isnt that old? Only like 6 years?

OSRS has gone aroune 13 years. WoW is around 16. Even Black Desert online is around 6 years and is still going strong with no problems.

Like I said before. Either the base code for ESO was done badly. Or it wasnt ment to last long term.

ESO had been in development since Oblivion 🤦‍♂️ Yes it’s old

Holy *** i googled and it was in development for 7 years? How and why?