"Blackwood" doesn't really have any woods??

Iccotak

You can see Oblivion & Blackwood comparison

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9O_AQbyUEo

The architecture is beautiful. However, where is the forest?
I understand that there is a several hundred year gap between these games - but for a zone called "Blackwood" the tree vegetation is way too sparse. It doesn't look like a forest at all. It looks barren with trees dotting the landscape.

People who have been playing on the PTS what is your take? Got any screenshots you can share?

MattVH

I've been running around on the PTS. They are indeed sparse in general, and compared to TES 4 there's more smaller/thin trees around instead. I get that ESO's cyrodiil could never get close to TES 4's density, but had more hope for blackwood.

I'd like more thick trees (especially 'wide' trees like in TES4) and less trees that look like they belong in 'the rift'. Maybe not good for variety's sake, maybe even realism, but i'd gladly sacrifice that personally to make it look more like TES 4's blackwood.

If simply adding those isn't feasible (although i'd ask them to at least put in a few more :P) i really do wish more autumn birches get replaced with the larger ancient looking trees with a thick 'canopy' of leaves and branches. Replacing them might impact performance as well, but hopefully it's something they can consider. Blackwood sure needs to become more of a forrest indeed.

I'm suprised that i've not run into those iconic blackwood trees yet (like in this picture:)

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O3X9lfa6ipM/maxresdefault.jpg

I agree with your point. They always do a very good job with the architecture. This would be the right chapter to look into making the forrests more iconic as well.

Darkstorne

I think the engine can't do it. It's bizarre. Even Valenwood and Cyrodiil's great forest are just sparsely scattered mature trees. And there is zero change to ground flora within a "woodland/forest" part of a map compared to grassland.

As an ecologist it's my biggest pet peeve with the game

Danikat

Darkstorne wrote: »

I think the engine can't do it. It's bizarre. Even Valenwood and Cyrodiil's great forest are just sparsely scattered mature trees. And there is zero change to ground flora within a "woodland/forest" part of a map compared to grassland.

As an ecologist it's my biggest pet peeve with the game

Agreed. I was very dissapointed in Valenwood, it's always described as dense rainforest with gigantic trees where you can't see the sky from the ground and can't see the ground from the canopy, but what we got is more like a beech wood, lots of tall trees but widely spaced with very little understory. After that I've not been expecting much from the woods in this game.

I'm not sure if it's because the game couldn't handle that much stuff in one area, or if it's a design choice because they don't want to make it too hard to see or navigate long distances (ZOS do seem very worried that players won't be able to find things like quests or how to start DLC unless it's made very, very obvious, maybe they don't trust us to navigate maps either) but either way it's a let down.

For Blackwood I was expecting a cross between the southern part of Southern Elseweyr (which is supposed to be rainforest too) and Murkmire, hopefully more understory than Valenwood but big trees or dense woodland seem unlikely. From what I've seen on the PTS it's mostly open areas, but I haven't been round the whole map yet.

menedhyn

Iccotak wrote: »

The architecture is beautiful. However, where is the forest?

Yep.That's quite a damning comparison. Thanks for sharing.

Darkstorne wrote: »

Even Valenwood and Cyrodiil's great forest are just sparsely scattered mature trees

I really love Valenwood for what it is, but what a difference a bit more structure and depth would bring to the feel of the zones to help meet the description in lore. That might at least appease me a bit.

RedMuse

Maybe because once upon a time when the area got named there was a wood or forest but it got cut down, likely by the Imperials to build their houses in the area.

Like this is not at all uncommon. I live in an area that is basically named Aspen Forest if translated into English and the best we can do in this are is two small copses of beech trees about a mile from where I live. So why is it called Aspen Forest? Because back when this area was named about a thousand years ago it did indeed have a good deal of aspen trees growing here, setting it apart from most of the area where beech, birch, oak along with firs and pines were the most common. So it made every sense to call the area Aspen Forest. And since people rarely change the name of an area once it is named the name has stuck, even though there haven't been an asp tree here for several centuries now.

So riddle me this? Why should there be a wood in Blackwood?

Monte_Cristo

All those staves, arrows and battering rams gotta come from somewhere.

Faulgor

Darkstorne wrote: »

I think the engine can't do it. It's bizarre. Even Valenwood and Cyrodiil's great forest are just sparsely scattered mature trees. And there is zero change to ground flora within a "woodland/forest" part of a map compared to grassland.

As an ecologist it's my biggest pet peeve with the game

I think the engine can handle it just fine. There are environments with dense vegetation in this game ... mostly in dungeons, though, which are limited to 4 players. Open world environments have to accommodate many more people, so spaces are designed much larger. So it's probably more a design issue than a technical one.

It's not a design I particularly agree with, though. It feels out of date.

Tensar

RedMuse wrote: »

Maybe because once upon a time when the area got named there was a wood or forest but it got cut down, likely by the Imperials to build their houses in the area.

Like this is not at all uncommon. I live in an area that is basically named Aspen Forest if translated into English and the best we can do in this are is two small copses of beech trees about a mile from where I live. So why is it called Aspen Forest? Because back when this area was named about a thousand years ago it did indeed have a good deal of aspen trees growing here, setting it apart from most of the area where beech, birch, oak along with firs and pines were the most common. So it made every sense to call the area Aspen Forest. And since people rarely change the name of an area once it is named the name has stuck, even though there haven't been an asp tree here for several centuries now.

So riddle me this? Why should there be a wood in Blackwood?

But TES IV is 800 years after TESO and got Forest.

It's just something to simplify the navigation for players, they probably thinks of the playerbase to be a bit stupid..?

The new blackwood dosn't look like the blackwood we knew.

ThorianB

It's Blackwood not Blackwoods. Blackwood would imply wood( bark probably) that is black, not a forest. It could be from a species of tree that grows there or use to grow there or a type of moss or plant that grows on the bark or all kinds of things. Literally nothing about that name implies a forest is located there.

Luke_Flamesword

It's not engine, but design. Even old Gothic II from 2002 can handle dense forests - with simple assets you can have right feeling:




I really wish to see big forest in ESO, where you can get lost...

emilyhyoyeon

MattVH wrote: »

I'd like more thick trees (especially 'wide' trees like in TES4) and less trees that look like they belong in 'the rift'. Maybe not good for variety's sake, maybe even realism, but i'd gladly sacrifice that personally to make it look more like TES 4's blackwood.

If simply adding those isn't feasible (although i'd ask them to at least put in a few more :P) i really do wish more autumn birches get replaced with the larger ancient looking trees with a thick 'canopy' of leaves and branches. Replacing them might impact performance as well, but hopefully it's something they can consider. Blackwood sure needs to become more of a forrest indeed.

completely agree with at least making the type of tree more reminiscent.

I also want to say that the sparseness of Blackwood on PTS right now is more sparse than a lot of other zones. Grahtwood for example may not be as intensely foresty as it should be (due to game limitations or whatever), but it isn't completely off the mark like I would say Blackwood is right now on PTS.

TelvanniWizard

Imo the only "true" forests present in the game are Selene's web location and that Corimont place in Summerset. The rest wood areas have too sparse trees and vegetation to be called forests or jungles.

Tai-Chi

Once your Hero(s) has/have closed & sorted out the Oblivion gates, then the trees will have a chance to grow into the lush forests we see, centauries' later.

RemanCyrodiil_I

-

Elsonso

Darkstorne wrote: »

I think the engine can't do it. It's bizarre. Even Valenwood and Cyrodiil's great forest are just sparsely scattered mature trees. And there is zero change to ground flora within a "woodland/forest" part of a map compared to grassland.

It may also have to do with the technology used to generate the foliage. TES 4 used SpeedTree to generate the leaves on the trees, which resulted in a very specific appearance. ESO does not use that.

As for the "engine can't do it"... if you see leaves, it can. I would imagine that how many leaves you see is more of a limitation bowing to the low-end PCs and consoles than "engine can't do it".

As far as I am concerned, it does not matter how top-of-the-line your PC or console is. Quite a bit of what you see is dictated by the person playing on the lowest supported hardware. Even, I might add, when "video settings" are set to "ultra-maximum-op-top-tier" in the Settings. Even when they move up the standards, like when the dropped DX9, the limitations imposed by earlier low-end platform support are not easily changed.

As for the number of trees... yes, ZOS should add more trees. They won't, but they should.

phantasmalD

ThorianB wrote: »

It's Blackwood not Blackwoods. Blackwood would imply wood( bark probably) that is black, not a forest. It could be from a species of tree that grows there or use to grow there or a type of moss or plant that grows on the bark or all kinds of things. Literally nothing about that name implies a forest is located there.

What. 'Wood' is literally a synonym for forest.

Tensar wrote: »

RedMuse wrote: »

Maybe because once upon a time when the area got named there was a wood or forest but it got cut down, likely by the Imperials to build their houses in the area.

Like this is not at all uncommon. I live in an area that is basically named Aspen Forest if translated into English and the best we can do in this are is two small copses of beech trees about a mile from where I live. So why is it called Aspen Forest? Because back when this area was named about a thousand years ago it did indeed have a good deal of aspen trees growing here, setting it apart from most of the area where beech, birch, oak along with firs and pines were the most common. So it made every sense to call the area Aspen Forest. And since people rarely change the name of an area once it is named the name has stuck, even though there haven't been an asp tree here for several centuries now.

So riddle me this? Why should there be a wood in Blackwood?

But TES IV is 800 years after TESO and got Forest.

It's just something to simplify the navigation for players, they probably thinks of the playerbase to be a bit stupid..?

The new blackwood dosn't look like the blackwood we knew.

Well, as you said it yourself, TES IV takes place 800 years after ESO. Plenty of time for the forest to grow denser.

It's quite possibly an intentional design choice to tell a story. I mean the sparser forest isn't the only difference, ESO Blackwood also has a pretty big lake in the middle which in TES IV was a shallow wetland. It's visual storytelling conveying the passage of time.

RemanCyrodiil_I wrote: »

The lore reason for it would be that the Fourth Legion unintentionally burned down virtually the entire Blackwood forest during the Blackwater war. This was 674 years before the events of ESO. I'm not an expert in these things but I'm fairly sure that it wouldn't be unreasonable if that forest had not fully grown back yet within that timeframe - especially if as @RedMuse suggests the local Imperials were slowing down the process by cutting down the new trees as they regrew.

Also, yeah, this is a thing. https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:The_Blackwater_War

RedMuse

@RemanCyrodiil_I @phantasmalD

Thank you for those lore bits, I wasn't aware of The Blackwater War. But considering the nature of war, that lumber is used in a number of ways during a campaign in a world with the technological level of the TES universe and that there could very likely have been a "scorched earth" policy from either or both sides, it is not unlikely that the wood in this area took significant damage or even was completely decimated.

Would 600 years be enough for it to grow back? No, not on its own at the least. Trees grows very slowly and if they have to plant and spread themselves then they do so at less than snails pace. So unless there was immediate, large scale and concerted effort to restore the forest after the war it wouldn't even begin to look the way it had before a mere 600 years after its destruction.

1400 years now? (Period from The Black Water war to TESIV). Yeah that sounds more reasonable. And it could of course at any time between these two points have been helped along by people helping reconstruct the forest growth, but even with help 600 years would be a very short time for a full on forest to be regrown had it been destroyed.

All of this is speculation of course and the out-of-universe explanation might be technical capabilities of the game (and of the hardware many people run the game on) that doesn't allow for a forest full of trees. But there are many reasons in-universe for why an area named forest, wood or something similar may have barely a tree in sight. Even if there is a full on forest 8 year later.

Supreme_Atromancer

First, gotta say that that clip also really highlights what a gorgeous job they've done on the worldspace and architecture. Stunning.

RemanCyrodiil_I wrote: »

The lore reason for it would be that the Fourth Legion unintentionally burned down virtually the entire Blackwood forest during the Blackwater war. This was 674 years before the events of ESO. I'm not an expert in these things but I'm fairly sure that it wouldn't be unreasonable if that forest had not fully grown back yet within that timeframe - especially if as @RedMuse suggests the local Imperials were slowing down the process by cutting down the new trees as they regrew.

There's absolutely no way a woodland would take 674 years to regenerate after fire. The community might change, and even then, only after repeated burning for a very long time, and in complete isolation from adjoining woodlands, but there would still be some vegetation community there to take its place.

We can go on about "black wood" and moss, and who knows what else, but the thing is these probably aren't organic, story-driven decisions, but hand-waiving after the fact because performance.

ThorianB

phantasmalD wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

It's Blackwood not Blackwoods. Blackwood would imply wood( bark probably) that is black, not a forest. It could be from a species of tree that grows there or use to grow there or a type of moss or plant that grows on the bark or all kinds of things. Literally nothing about that name implies a forest is located there.

What. 'Wood' is literally a synonym for forest.

No, "WOODS" is a synonym for forest. The "s" is important. The zone is called Blackwood not Blackwoods, as i stated. Blackwood implies wood that is black or has a black/dark hue not a dark or black forest. Blackwood would be similar to Redwood. The latter is a name for the Sequoia trees on the west coast of the US because of their red heartwood.

Supreme_Atromancer

ThorianB wrote: »

phantasmalD wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

It's Blackwood not Blackwoods. Blackwood would imply wood( bark probably) that is black, not a forest. It could be from a species of tree that grows there or use to grow there or a type of moss or plant that grows on the bark or all kinds of things. Literally nothing about that name implies a forest is located there.

What. 'Wood' is literally a synonym for forest.

No, "WOODS" is a synonym for forest. The "s" is important. The zone is called Blackwood not Blackwoods, as i stated. Blackwood implies wood that is black or has a black/dark hue not a dark or black forest. Blackwood would be similar to Redwood. The latter is a name for the Sequoia trees on the west coast of the US because of their red heartwood.

That's not always true. The proper name for the community is woodland, and both are abbreviations of that. There are many places named after characteristics of a woodland called -wood that have nothing to do with characteristics of the timber (Prairiewood, Ringwood, etc, etc). As many people would understand "Blackwood", it would refer to a woodland. Its not that your explanation is impossible, just less likely, based on how many people speak.

RemanCyrodiil_I

-

Elsonso

RemanCyrodiil_I wrote: »

Niben Forest

Yeah... that isn't a forest. It isn't even a "woods". It is hilly grassland with trees.

This is a forest...

amapola76

RedMuse wrote: »

Would 600 years be enough for it to grow back? No, not on its own at the least. Trees grows very slowly and if they have to plant and spread themselves then they do so at less than snails pace. So unless there was immediate, large scale and concerted effort to restore the forest after the war it wouldn't even begin to look the way it had before a mere 600 years after its destruction.

You've clearly never seen my backyard. If I didn't spend dozens of hours each spring and summer scooping up the whirligig seeds, I would have several hundred new trees each year on my modest acre. Sometimes I miss one in a shady corner... or transplant them for friends and family who need more trees... and I've seen them grow 5-6 feet, or more, in a single season. I think you may be underestimating how much a forest wants to be a forest. Trees are mad nymphomaniacs.

Obviously subject to type of tree, local climate, etc. But 600 years is more than enough time for a deep and dark forest to grow back, just without some of the most ancient growth. A mere 50 years would probably make it denser than what people are seeing on PTS. And yes, of course, the relevant caveat here is "if left relatively undisturbed." But if not undisturbed, then in place of the trees, you would expect to see stumps everywhere (as you do in parts of Cyro, for example), which would tell a different sort of story. I rather doubt that invading or defending armies would spend much time or energy on stump-grinding after cutting down trees.

Supreme_Atromancer

RemanCyrodiil_I wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

hand-waiving after the fact because performance.

It is likely more a purposeful design decision. ZOS was clear in wanting to create three regions within Blackwood that have their own designs.

The Niben "Forest" would probably fit the description of a parkland or savannah, but your response makes a lot of sense. Its a compelling point.

I am not sure why people are disappointed that most of the zone isn't covered in a depressing, swampy forest like Oblivion's Blackwood. ^^

I think you've read too many fairy stories! Wetlands are gorgeous places, you just have to open your eyes. Even in Oblivion, those black-trunked, willowy woodlands were really evocative and gave that part of the world a really distinct and interesting feel.

Iccotak

Luke_Flamesword wrote: »

I really wish to see big forest in ESO, where you can get lost...

TelvanniWizard wrote: »

Imo the only "true" forests present in the game are Selene's web location and that Corimont place in Summerset. The rest wood areas have too sparse trees and vegetation to be called forests or jungles.

Hard Agree

Meanwhile WoW is able to use their tools effectively to create dense forests and jungles

Elsonso

Iccotak wrote: »

Luke_Flamesword wrote: »

I really wish to see big forest in ESO, where you can get lost...

TelvanniWizard wrote: »

Imo the only "true" forests present in the game are Selene's web location and that Corimont place in Summerset. The rest wood areas have too sparse trees and vegetation to be called forests or jungles.

Hard Agree

Meanwhile WoW is able to use their tools effectively to create dense forests and jungles

Yeah... Elwynn Forest looks impressive until you realize the "forest" is 10 trees that are 50 feet wide at the base.

SammyKhajit

Deforestation and climate change have come to Tamriel!

And yes, am trying out Blackwood right now, it’s quite sparse and there is an odd combination of Murkmire type of plants added to the scene. You can do hybrid forests but this one is just a “regular” forest with a few exotic plants added.

NotaDaedraWorshipper

ESO's "forests" are all very lacking, some worse than others. Like Valenwood. But even areas that are supposed to be deciduous forests are lacking in trees and vegetation. You'd think ZoS believes we would get lost if they added some extra trees, bushes and foliage.

I'm also bothered by Leyawiin and the Niben River. I know they have to scale down everything, but they could at least make it so Tamriel's biggest trade route looks like ships could pass by.

Tigertron

I'm thinking its just that PTS is not fleshed out yet. There is not many things in the area either. Like animals and NPCs, and no resource nodes.

Elsonso

Tigertron wrote: »

I'm thinking its just that PTS is not fleshed out yet. There is not many things in the area either. Like animals and NPCs, and no resource nodes.

I expect that only the animals and resource nodes are still pending. I don't expect any significant changes in the world itself. That includes adding trees, or even making the Deadlands portals look more impressive than little glowy Christmas tree ornaments hanging down from the veil.