Dynamic development - why aren't new settlements emerging anywhere?

Lugaldu

While I was running my favorite harvesting route, the following thought occurred to me: In Tamriel there is no development, in Vivec City there is construction going on, but the work is never finished. Throughout the ages, people have been drawn to new places for various reasons and new settlements have been established. Wouldn't it be interesting if new settlements would appear in the various provinces from time to time, which then also bring a few new quests to already known areas?

Danikat

It would be interesting, but it would interfear with ZOS insisting the entire game is taking place within 1 year, with all the expansion and DLC stories happening at the same time as the base game story. I don't think it's a good idea to do that personally, but it's the route they've chosen.

There's practical considerations too.

One option is that new versions of areas overwrite the previous ones and then new players coming in never get to see what it was like before and never get to do any content which was only associated with the older version, and if there's any storylines or lore associated with the change they will miss that too. Guild Wars 2 has this problem: among other changes their main hub city was completely destroyed and rebuilt, but new players only get to see the original version during story instances, with no explanation for why it looks different so it's just confusing. No one gets to see the destruction or rebuilding any more because those versions were part of one-off storylines which are finished now.

The other option is to have phased or instanced maps so all versions are available and players are sent to the correct one for the storylines they're currently on (for example if you haven't done the quest to save a town it's on fire and full of enemies, if you've done the quest the fires are out and the citizens are returning). ESO does this sometimes and used to do it a lot more but ZOS removed a lot of it because it was extremely difficult to group up for quests unless you did a whole map together, always making the same choices - otherwise as soon as you got into the area for a quest your group members would vanish because they were put into different versions of the area. It also contributed to the impression that the game was not very popular, because at any given time you'd only see people who were on the same part of the quest chain as you (and this was before One Tamriel so you wouldn't even see all of them, only ones in your alliance.)

There might be a 3rd option, or ways to do those two without causing problems by splitting players or causing them to miss content, but if there is I haven't encountered it and I'm not sure how it would work.

On top of that there's the fact that developers, artists, writers, voice actors etc. need to spend time creating all the different versions of areas but unless there's a reason for players to go back there after the quests are finished they won't go very often and then that effort is wasted, or you give them reasons and run the risk that they get bored with going back over the same areas repeatedly.

For example people keep asking for Bleakrock to be rebuilt and repopulated and in theory I like the idea, I agree it's unrealistic for it to be abandoned indefinitely because of a one-off attack. But unless there's new quests or a reason to visit I can't see myself going back there more than once or twice to have a look around. Even if they add all the facilities that cities have that just makes it another option among the many already available and I don't go to them all the time either.

ZOS have to weigh up the benefits of devoting time and effort to making multiple versions of areas, some of which might only be visited once for players to go "Oh that's nice, they're rebuilding/have rebuilt" vs. spending that time making new things for players to do.

zaria

Yes, at least for AD zones its plenty of places who get restored then you do the quests for it.
But as Danikat points out they tend to not be very useful afterwards.
Best exception is probably hollow city in coldharbor.

JamuThatsWho

Because it's a video game.

Mindcr0w

From the dev's viewpoint: too much effort and resources spent for too little payoff.

Plus the timeline thing.

Lugaldu

Danikat wrote: »

It would be interesting, but it would interfear with ZOS insisting the entire game is taking place within 1 year, with all the expansion and DLC stories happening at the same time as the base game story. I don't think it's a good idea to do that personally, but it's the route they've chosen.

Yes, I also thought about the issue with the timeline and that time actually does not proceed. From a RP point of view, this can generally only be solved individually - the events that my main experiences extend at least in his history over several years. But also the appearance of new settlements does not necessarily have to extend over a long period of time within the sequence of events in the game, as new settlements are constantly emerging.

Danikat wrote: »

There's practical considerations too.

One option is that new versions of areas overwrite the previous ones and then new players coming in never get to see what it was like before and never get to do any content which was only associated with the older version, and if there's any storylines or lore associated with the change they will miss that too. Guild Wars 2 has this problem: among other changes their main hub city was completely destroyed and rebuilt, but new players only get to see the original version during story instances, with no explanation for why it looks different so it's just confusing. No one gets to see the destruction or rebuilding any more because those versions were part of one-off storylines which are finished now.

The other option is to have phased or instanced maps so all versions are available and players are sent to the correct one for the storylines they're currently on (for example if you haven't done the quest to save a town it's on fire and full of enemies, if you've done the quest the fires are out and the citizens are returning). ESO does this sometimes and used to do it a lot more but ZOS removed a lot of it because it was extremely difficult to group up for quests unless you did a whole map together, always making the same choices - otherwise as soon as you got into the area for a quest your group members would vanish because they were put into different versions of the area. It also contributed to the impression that the game was not very popular, because at any given time you'd only see people who were on the same part of the quest chain as you (and this was before One Tamriel so you wouldn't even see all of them, only ones in your alliance.)

There might be a 3rd option, or ways to do those two without causing problems by splitting players or causing them to miss content, but if there is I haven't encountered it and I'm not sure how it would work.

As for the technical implementation. If the new settlements arise in previously unpopulated areas, then it is questionable whether new players would really be at a disadvantage if they did not know the previous version without everything?

Danikat wrote: »

But unless there's new quests or a reason to visit I can't see myself going back there more than once or twice to have a look around. Even if they add all the facilities that cities have that just makes it another option among the many already available and I don't go to them all the time either.

Regarding coming back to certain areas - we already have that with the antiquities system, we already got reasons to return to all different regions. In such connection it would also fit to encounter new settlements and find new quests.

Is the effort worth for the developers? Maybe, depends what they connect with that. The new settlements can, for example, include a new buyable / unlockable houses, which can only be acquired if you have completed the quests. Of course, you can argue that new houses keep appearing on offer anyway, but combined with a few quests it might be more attractive.

hafgood

I have no problems with new quests in old areas, it's a reason to revisit. The problem with new settlements is they have to displace what's already there, and a lot of the time there is quest related stuff in the general vicinity.

So you could replace older quests with newer quests but that only benefits long term players, there is no benefit to new players and the new quests couldn't replace the main zone quests as there are skill points associated with them.

So whilst I can appreciate where the poster is coming from I think it would be too much hassle for the devs, and these are the same devs that would be doing the new chapter and dlc.

Olauron

Lugaldu wrote: »

While I was running my favorite harvesting route, the following thought occurred to me: In Tamriel there is no development, in Vivec City there is construction going on, but the work is never finished. Throughout the ages, people have been drawn to new places for various reasons and new settlements have been established. Wouldn't it be interesting if new settlements would appear in the various provinces from time to time, which then also bring a few new quests to already known areas?

There is no change even between games and thousands of years, so there will be no change in the one and only one year of ESO timeline.
I mean, we even have Seyda Neen in the ESO Morrowind despite it being an imperial town built after the opening of Vvardenfell for foreigners (in 3E 414 Vvardenfell was opened for imperial settlement; "except for a few Great House settlements sanctioned by the Temple, Vvardenfell was previously uninhabited and undeveloped").

Lugaldu

Olauron wrote: »

There is no change even between games and thousands of years

And that too is somehow illogical and a certain waste of possibilities.

hafgood wrote: »

The problem with new settlements is they have to displace what's already there, and a lot of the time there is quest related stuff in the general vicinity.

So you could replace older quests with newer quests but that only benefits long term players, there is no benefit to new players and the new quests couldn't replace the main zone quests as there are skill points associated with them.

My idea is really that the new settlements wouldl be placed where there was nothing relevant before, just wilderness. And by doing so, no old quests would be replaced. Of course, it would be primarily of interest to players who have been around for a longer time, to offer them something new.

hafgood

The problem is a lot of that "wilderness" has quests in, even if it is just the obligatory lost dog quest

Mythreindeer

Danikat wrote: »

It would be interesting, but it would interfear with ZOS insisting the entire game is taking place within 1 year, with all the expansion and DLC stories happening at the same time as the base game story. I don't think it's a good idea to do that personally, but it's the route they've chosen.

There's practical considerations too.

One option is that new versions of areas overwrite the previous ones and then new players coming in never get to see what it was like before and never get to do any content which was only associated with the older version, and if there's any storylines or lore associated with the change they will miss that too. Guild Wars 2 has this problem: among other changes their main hub city was completely destroyed and rebuilt, but new players only get to see the original version during story instances, with no explanation for why it looks different so it's just confusing. No one gets to see the destruction or rebuilding any more because those versions were part of one-off storylines which are finished now.

The other option is to have phased or instanced maps so all versions are available and players are sent to the correct one for the storylines they're currently on (for example if you haven't done the quest to save a town it's on fire and full of enemies, if you've done the quest the fires are out and the citizens are returning). ESO does this sometimes and used to do it a lot more but ZOS removed a lot of it because it was extremely difficult to group up for quests unless you did a whole map together, always making the same choices - otherwise as soon as you got into the area for a quest your group members would vanish because they were put into different versions of the area. It also contributed to the impression that the game was not very popular, because at any given time you'd only see people who were on the same part of the quest chain as you (and this was before One Tamriel so you wouldn't even see all of them, only ones in your alliance.)

There might be a 3rd option, or ways to do those two without causing problems by splitting players or causing them to miss content, but if there is I haven't encountered it and I'm not sure how it would work.

On top of that there's the fact that developers, artists, writers, voice actors etc. need to spend time creating all the different versions of areas but unless there's a reason for players to go back there after the quests are finished they won't go very often and then that effort is wasted, or you give them reasons and run the risk that they get bored with going back over the same areas repeatedly.

For example people keep asking for Bleakrock to be rebuilt and repopulated and in theory I like the idea, I agree it's unrealistic for it to be abandoned indefinitely because of a one-off attack. But unless there's new quests or a reason to visit I can't see myself going back there more than once or twice to have a look around. Even if they add all the facilities that cities have that just makes it another option among the many already available and I don't go to them all the time either.

ZOS have to weigh up the benefits of devoting time and effort to making multiple versions of areas, some of which might only be visited once for players to go "Oh that's nice, they're rebuilding/have rebuilt" vs. spending that time making new things for players to do.

+1 for length.

DreamsUnderStars

Because this is not a dynamic game. The only thing that moves along is ZOS's bank account... just kidding. Showing advancement like new settlements showing up, towns repairing, Dolmens stopping to show the Planemeld has ended would mean admitting that time is advancing. For some reason Zeni wants everything to happen at the same time... though I don't know how the Planemeld, Vvardenfell, the Rimmen invasion, the Dragonguard and Greymoor happenings can all be in the same year when the "hero" is meant to be the one stopping them... Do they not know how travel and logistics work? Tamriel is huge, there's no way this would just be done in a year.

But I digress, we don't see progress because Zeni doesn't want it for some reason.

Varana

Olauron wrote: »

Lugaldu wrote: »

While I was running my favorite harvesting route, the following thought occurred to me: In Tamriel there is no development, in Vivec City there is construction going on, but the work is never finished. Throughout the ages, people have been drawn to new places for various reasons and new settlements have been established. Wouldn't it be interesting if new settlements would appear in the various provinces from time to time, which then also bring a few new quests to already known areas?

There is no change even between games and thousands of years, so there will be no change in the one and only one year of ESO timeline.
I mean, we even have Seyda Neen in the ESO Morrowind despite it being an imperial town built after the opening of Vvardenfell for foreigners (in 3E 414 Vvardenfell was opened for imperial settlement; "except for a few Great House settlements sanctioned by the Temple, Vvardenfell was previously uninhabited and undeveloped").

That quote isn't to be taken at face value, though - first, it omits the Ashlanders altogether, and second, it apparently calls Vivec City, the seat of one of the Tribunal, "a Great House settlement sanctioned by the Temple", which is ... misleading.
While Seyda Neen is controlled by the Empire in the late 3rd Era, nothing really suggests that it was a recent foundation. I agree that it is a bit ridiculous that its layout remains exactly the same for centuries and through major upheaval, and Medieval Stasis* is an annoying feature of a lot of Fantasy. But the existence of Seyda Neen in itself is not "ahistorical", so to speak.

* TVTropes link. You can thank me a few hours later.

VaranisArano

Practically speaking, any area that's already in the game is earmarked for possible use in a future Prologue quest. And any area not yet in game is earmarked for future DLC or Chapters.

On a lore level, most of the areas we're exploring are fairly war-torn and in a period of great distress. It's more a time for huddling in the walls of your nearest city, not boldly going out to plant a new settlement. Or at the very least, I'd expect to be constantly defending said settlement from ravaging armies, various daedric cults, and the occasional marauding dragon/vampire. Could be fun for a while, but not exactly conducive to the inhabitants leading long and peaceful lives, you know?

Firstmep

Don't think it's in the scope of the dev team.
When it comes to new content they mostly recycle the same systems for open world like dolmens, delves etc.

opaj

The construction in Orsinium does actually progress as you play through the questline. It's only cosmetic, but it is something they implemented in one place, at least.

I think other posters here have thoroughly covered why it's not really practical for them to pursue this on a larger scale, though.

Celephantsylvius_Bornasfinmo

I for one am for developing story lines and locations as it adds a sense of achievement and moving forward in the game.
I would like to see areas which are cleaned progressively change over time little by little. Nothing quest breaking of course, but much older areas which have been completed by the majority of the players in the past could be changed towards this.

The Witcher 3 did this and it was nice to see the fruits of your labour.
Fallout 4 didn't do this, but it was available via a player addon.

Lugaldu

VaranisArano wrote: »

On a lore level, most of the areas we're exploring are fairly war-torn and in a period of great distress. It's more a time for huddling in the walls of your nearest city, not boldly going out to plant a new settlement. Or at the very least, I'd expect to be constantly defending said settlement from ravaging armies, various daedric cults, and the occasional marauding dragon/vampire. Could be fun for a while, but not exactly conducive to the inhabitants leading long and peaceful lives, you know?

The reasons for the establishment of new settlements could / should indeed be different in the various regions and have a different background. During the New Life Festival we also helped refugees and orphans, therefore, it could be about a new settlement established by refugees (as just one example).

Lugaldu

Youyouz06 wrote: »

I would like to see areas which are cleaned progressively change over time little by little. Nothing quest breaking of course, but much older areas which have been completed by the majority of the players in the past could be changed towards this.

The Witcher 3 did this and it was nice to see the fruits of your labour.
Fallout 4 didn't do this, but it was available via a player addon.

Yes, something like that would be great. Reminds me of the TES IV mod "Kvatch Rebuilt" - I loved that.

scorpius2k1

It certainly would be nice and make the world more interesting. At least we have a basic environmental weather system

*snickers in aoc development*

DinoZavr

Well.. as you have mentioned the new settlements..
Here is a link to a nice one year old ESO Reddit image by u/Trasse: https://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/cu6g2l/stuga_another_settlement_needs_our_help_ive/

Tannus15

Isn't that pretty much the wrothgar / orsinium storyline?

kaisernick

Danikat wrote: »

It would be interesting, but it would interfear with ZOS insisting the entire game is taking place within 1 year, with all the expansion and DLC stories happening at the same time as the base game story. I don't think it's a good idea to do that personally, but it's the route they've chosen.

There's practical considerations too.

One option is that new versions of areas overwrite the previous ones and then new players coming in never get to see what it was like before and never get to do any content which was only associated with the older version, and if there's any storylines or lore associated with the change they will miss that too. Guild Wars 2 has this problem: among other changes their main hub city was completely destroyed and rebuilt, but new players only get to see the original version during story instances, with no explanation for why it looks different so it's just confusing. No one gets to see the destruction or rebuilding any more because those versions were part of one-off storylines which are finished now.

Hell look at wow as another example when cataclysm "remade" the world the leveling system becam jarring and terrible with story elements going out of order
Starting zone "the litch king is dead"
lvl 70 "go face the litch king"
like you said phasing is likly the only solouton to such a issue the op is asking about but i would just prefer to move on and now be in the never ending year.

Starlock

A dynamic world space like this has to be built into the game design early. It would be a very difficult, though perhaps not impossible, to do later in development.

Athan1

All events in ESO happen within the span of a couple of days. Yes, I'm being serious.

spekdah

Think you would need to design it like that in the first place to have a chance at working, i.e ashes of creation's node system.

Olauron

Varana wrote: »

Olauron wrote: »

Lugaldu wrote: »

While I was running my favorite harvesting route, the following thought occurred to me: In Tamriel there is no development, in Vivec City there is construction going on, but the work is never finished. Throughout the ages, people have been drawn to new places for various reasons and new settlements have been established. Wouldn't it be interesting if new settlements would appear in the various provinces from time to time, which then also bring a few new quests to already known areas?

There is no change even between games and thousands of years, so there will be no change in the one and only one year of ESO timeline.
I mean, we even have Seyda Neen in the ESO Morrowind despite it being an imperial town built after the opening of Vvardenfell for foreigners (in 3E 414 Vvardenfell was opened for imperial settlement; "except for a few Great House settlements sanctioned by the Temple, Vvardenfell was previously uninhabited and undeveloped").

That quote isn't to be taken at face value, though - first, it omits the Ashlanders altogether, and second, it apparently calls Vivec City, the seat of one of the Tribunal, "a Great House settlement sanctioned by the Temple", which is ... misleading.
While Seyda Neen is controlled by the Empire in the late 3rd Era, nothing really suggests that it was a recent foundation. I agree that it is a bit ridiculous that its layout remains exactly the same for centuries and through major upheaval, and Medieval Stasis* is an annoying feature of a lot of Fantasy. But the existence of Seyda Neen in itself is not "ahistorical", so to speak.

* TVTropes link. You can thank me a few hours later.

I agree, ashlanders are omitted. And cliffracers are omitted too. And when the island was divided into districts (Redoran, Hlaalu, Telvanni, and Temple), ashlanders were omitted again. That is because nobody cares about savages that may or may not wander some territory. There are no ashlander settlements, just temporary camps. So, even with ashlanders the territory is undeveloped.
As for Vivec city, since the island was called the "Temple preserve", there is no need to specifically include Temple settlements.
Regarding Seyda Neen, I don't believe in its existence in 2nd Era. That would lead to mass purge of "n'wah" from all Vvardenfell settlements (including Vivec and Seyda Neen), that would be a huge event after the Armistice, but it is not mentioned anywhere. I mean, the whole reason of the culture clash in the original Morrowind was because it was a new territory for mostly everyone, especially for the citizens of other provinces. The "it was open for imperials earlier, then closed, and now it is opened again" is completely different situation (especially for dunmer, for whom a 200-year old girl is too young).

P.S. TVTropes is a site known for years, but thanks nonetheless.

Vlad9425

They won’t use up dev time for this unless they can somehow profit from it.

KalyanLazair

I don't need new settlements appearing all over the place, but I wouldn't mind if formerly destroyed towns that we've cleared up would be rebuilt after certain time. It is no different to places like Haven in Grahtwood, that changes completely after you complete the quest. I do not expect ZOS will do that, however, considering it would only please the playerbase, yet bring no real profit. It takes time to develop and implement such a feature, time they would rather spend developing dungeons and DLCs they can monetize.

Lugaldu

Sure, it has to be financially worthwhile for the developers. But I do think that there would be opportunities that can also serve monetization. In the settlements themselves, there could exist entrances to new dungeons and thus the whole thing would be a new "feature" that you have to acquire in order to unlock the new content. Of course, one can still ask why the developers should do it when they can simply fill new areas with content. Well, it would fill old areas with life again, which are now rather empty and a lifeless, an empty game world will also become less and less attractive at some point.

Varana

Olauron wrote: »

I agree, ashlanders are omitted. And cliffracers are omitted too. And when the island was divided into districts (Redoran, Hlaalu, Telvanni, and Temple), ashlanders were omitted again. That is because nobody cares about savages that may or may not wander some territory. There are no ashlander settlements, just temporary camps. So, even with ashlanders the territory is undeveloped.
As for Vivec city, since the island was called the "Temple preserve", there is no need to specifically include Temple settlements.
Regarding Seyda Neen, I don't believe in its existence in 2nd Era. That would lead to mass purge of "n'wah" from all Vvardenfell settlements (including Vivec and Seyda Neen), that would be a huge event after the Armistice, but it is not mentioned anywhere. I mean, the whole reason of the culture clash in the original Morrowind was because it was a new territory for mostly everyone, especially for the citizens of other provinces. The "it was open for imperials earlier, then closed, and now it is opened again" is completely different situation (especially for dunmer, for whom a 200-year old girl is too young).

P.S. TVTropes is a site known for years, but thanks nonetheless.

Sorry, but you can't just cherrypick what the same sentence is meaning. "She says Vvardenfell was uninhabited so that proves that Seyda Neen cannot have existed. The palace of a frelling God was there in a massive city but she's still correct about it being uninhabited." Jeannette Sitte obviously was either very "generous" with her generalisations, and then a small village like Seyda Neen would have flown under her radar. Or she had no actual clue about what was going on on the island. We have no evidence Sitte was ever even kind of close to Morrowind, let alone Vvardenfell, herself.

Keeping with the ES tradition that everything that's on the screen, is canon, and everything else is supplementary material and potentially unreliable, at best, Seyda Neen obviously did exist in the 2nd Era.
That said, A Short History of Morrowind states that the Temple preserve of Vvardenfell was instituted only after the Armistice, i.e. at the very end of the 2nd Era. So if we choose to believe the book (or certain parts of it), you've got one possibility for reducing the number or expelling non-Dunmer (or their retainers of other races) right there. That's still 300 years after ESO.
Sitte's text also doesn't preclude Seyda Neen still existing as a Hlaalu concession, for instance, with the Imperial presence only moving in after 3E414. (It's still officially Hlaalu territory in TES3:MW.)

You seem to overestimate a Dunmer's life span quite considerably. A few Telvanni wizards can get very, very old - but for the rest of them, 200 years would be a decent life span, and 300 years is already pushing it.

So the claim that "Seyda Neen can't have existed in the 2nd Era" is based on a selective reading of one badly informed outside source, and even ignores quite a few possibilities to reconcile both that book and the existence of the town.

P.S. That remark was not supposed to mean that TVTropes is news but to allude to the fact that links to the site often result(ed?) in generous sessions of binge-reading.