Direction of Content

codierussell

Recently, I have had many conversations about the direction for the content releases that ZOS has been implementing. For the last couple years it seems like they are okay with a chapter containing a zone and trial, a zone DLC and two dungeon DLCs. My question is why, and if the player base agrees with this? Now obviously all PvPers hate this because there is never any new PvP content, hence why PvP is so scarce lately. But I wanted to dive into my perspective on the content structure.

First off the chapters. Usually this are larger zones with lots to do and a full trial. As a endgame PvE player, this is the best time of year because of the new trial. The zone, I don't really care for. Although I do agree that lots of people love the lore and the zone questing so it makes sense why this content is there. Looking at it from a constructive view I really can't argue about how they release the chapters once a year. They have a lot of content for a wide range of players and you almost always see a bump in player population during the chapter release.

Moving on to the zone DLC like the one upcoming. People like myself usually ignore it entirely. There is nothing in these updates that I am overly excited about other than the occasional set. The quests and stories tend to be rather short and the zones small. I see these as an extension of base game zones that most of us have done years ago. These DLCs are only for lore players.

Now onto the dungeon DLCs. To be blunt I find these a huge waste of resources for ZOS. Endgame players like myself have all this content done within a week of being launched. The hard modes tend to be easy, and therefore the trifectas are finished very quickly, sometimes finishing them within a couple attempts. For the questers and lore players, well that only gives them one play through to get the content they play the game for. These are the DLCs I think need to be reevaluated. The dungeons never provide any long lasting content and maybe some decent sets here or there in an already massive set pool. I never hear someone say "hey lets do x dungeon I love that place so much!", it is always "can you do x dungeon with me so I can farm this set". So my point, why does ZOS put so much effort into creating 4 dungeons per year that has very little replay value?

My solutions: First off would be stop putting out dungeons, or at least change one dungeon DLC to something else. I would love to replace one dungeon DLC a year (ie two dungeons) with a mini trial. That way a mini trial and a full trial are released every year. Trials have a lot more replay value because of the leaderboard system and the higher difficulty than 4 man dungeons. Talking about leaderboards, why not have a leaderboard system in dungeons? A harder difficulty in dungeons that drop gold items? These are things that may actually make dungeons worth running.

Gundug

One problem dungeons suffer from is that, much like a Scooby Doo episode, they are all extremely formulaic, having a start here, kill this boss, this boss, this boss, this boss, final boss, end here, and, as in Scooby Doo, the villain would have gotten away with it, if it hadn’t been for those meddling kids.

I know there are some newer dungeons with secret side bosses and such, but those are small changes that don’t significantly shake up the format.

The developers are limited in some ways by the restrictions imposed by the four person, specific role crew, and expectations of time to complete, as well as relative compatibility with other dungeons, but a fresh approach could be a step toward making this game mode more interesting and fun.

The introduction of “mini trials” was an older example of rethinking the trial format, and I think the trials generally differentiate between each other pretty well.

merpins

Some people don't enjoy doing trials. Some people don't enjoy doing dungeons. Some people don't enjoy doing PVP, and some people don't enjoy doing PVE. Well, what's the difference between all that content being released? Players need to do dungeons to progress. Players don't need to do trials to progress. So of course ZoS will release more dungeons than trials, they're done far more often than trials are.

Maya_Nur

Interesting observation here! As a lore-hunter I would love to see new global mechanics, but instead of replacing one dungeon DLC, I would suggest to release just one dungeon with the chapter (so there will be a set: chapter + 1 trial + 1 dungeon), because I really dislike the year-long-story scheme.

What mechanics? Well, there are many suggestions I saw in other topics:
— Something need to be done with dead pvp;
— Lack of immersion (too easy questing) is dissapointing medium-difficulty players;
— Flying and sailing;
— City management;
— Rework of the class system to non-class system;
— Vampire reimagine;
— Spell/skill crafting;
— New weapons;
— Sub-races system;
— Reputation system;
— End of Three Banners War (with new conflict)
— Tavern games;
— Some skill lines: monk, engineer, shehai, bare-handed and so on

And many-many more

Hymzir

Because ZOS is not in the business of selling nail-biting challenges to endgame players with years and years of experience. They sell the MMO equivalent of comfort food. It's easy, simple fast no fuzz entertainment for those looking for something to while away the hours of their free time.

It's also incredibly easy to produce. You got a tested and true formula, and all you gotta do is follow the blueprint. It also 'prolly cuts down on development costs too, since it's essentially the same old same old, just with a fresh paint job.

And people buy it. I mean, I poke alot of fun on this issue at ZOS. How each chapter is just a carbon copy of the last one. You got the same standard number of delves, the same number of Skyshards to hunt down, the same basic quest-line to go through (where you are essentially just a spectator along for the ride, watching the real stars of the story act out their scenes, while providing the muscle to deal with mobs) and the same number of collectibles and mementos to gather while doing it. Some sort of new iteration of dark anchors and the now standardized number of new sets to collect and craft. You also got your standard slew of dailies, each with their now standard rewards of motif and construction piece blueprints for housing. Its all incredibly samey, but it is also entertaining enough on its own.

Still... I too bought Blackwood (when it went on sale), and my current plan is to sub for a moth sometime between November and December and play through the story-line of the new zones. Besides, I like Leyawiin. Always have, always will. It wont beat Anvil, my number one town in Cyrodiil, but it is a close second. And the ESO version is pretty neat looking, so am looking forward to do few weeks of active questing when I got time for it. And that, I believe is the scenario for most people who play ESO. ZOS has stated themselves, that their business model revolves around returning customers. That they produce new content each year, for which a lot of people return for a month or two while they play though the new stuff. They buy the expansion, 'prolly sub for a month or two, do the quests, see the sights, buy some new cosmetics from the crown store to spice up their latest adventure, and then go back to doing other things, only to return next year to do the next "chapter."

ZOS does that because it works, and because it makes them a lot of money. And because, quite frankly, there is a demand for that sort of thing. Not everyone is looking for a game to play every day of the year. In a sense, these expansions are like those old Gold Box D&D PC games. New one game out each year and you played it through and then forgot about. Not because they were new and innovative, or even provided stellar content. They were fun, straightforward and familiar. Easy to get into and didn't require too much hard thinking. And that is what ESO is for modern players. At least you get some new endgame PVE stuff each year. PVP players get basically ignored by ZOS.

I do, however, wish that they'd mix up the formula a bit. It really has become stale, and the last thing we need for next year, is yet another world threatening calamity of apocalypse and terror. I really hope they will go with something more grounded, something more like Orsinium and Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood. I fear though, that we will face yet another world ending scenario next year too. Sigh.

Elsonso

Gundug wrote: »

One problem dungeons suffer from is that, much like a Scooby Doo episode, they are all extremely formulaic, having a start here, kill this boss, this boss, this boss, this boss, final boss, end here, and, as in Scooby Doo, the villain would have gotten away with it, if it hadn’t been for those meddling kids.

I know there are some newer dungeons with secret side bosses and such, but those are small changes that don’t significantly shake up the format.

The developers are limited in some ways by the restrictions imposed by the four person, specific role crew, and expectations of time to complete, as well as relative compatibility with other dungeons, but a fresh approach could be a step toward making this game mode more interesting and fun.

Ruh Rho. Well, that is the way it is done. You generally run from boss to boss, and they are all waiting for the heroes to show. Most penultimate bosses are standing around in an arena-like area waiting for you.

In delves, public dungeons, and world bosses, if the boss is out running a quick errand, we all stand, or jump, around swapping emotes and mementos until he shows up. Then, we kill him in under 30 seconds. Rinse and repeat.

whitecrow

Well, I am not sure why you blow off the "zone DLC" as it is the conclusion to the year's story. It's pretty important.

I dislike this piecemeal release schedule. It was novel the first time (Elsweyr) but now it's just annoying. I was always under the impression that if I bought the main expansion the 2nd part ("zone DLC") was included but lately I have heard that it isn't the case? (I have had plus since it started so I would have access either way.) It's so confusing. I don't know if they make it intentionally confusing so that people accidentally overspend or what.

What I would really like them to do is simply release a full expansion whenever it is ready. Give us the whole thing, charge us more, fine.

CoronHR

i'd prefer less of the year-long story saga and more like it was a long time ago, where each release was a totally different place

SkaraMinoc

Trials mean nothing to me. Instead, add a new battleground with every chapter.

This will never happen though. It's depressing.

SkaraMinoc

I guarantee 100% that more players play battlegrounds every day than trials. It's not even close.

It's mind boggling that they add a new trial and not a new battleground. Makes zero sense.

Elsonso

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

I guarantee 100% that more players play battlegrounds every day than trials. It's not even close.

It's mind boggling that they add a new trial and not a new battleground. Makes zero sense.

Not really. New PVP _anything_ apparently waiting for the team working on PVP performance to finish.

trackdemon5512

codierussell wrote: »

Recently, I have had many conversations about the direction for the content releases that ZOS has been implementing. For the last couple years it seems like they are okay with a chapter containing a zone and trial, a zone DLC and two dungeon DLCs. My question is why, and if the player base agrees with this? Now obviously all PvPers hate this because there is never any new PvP content, hence why PvP is so scarce lately. But I wanted to dive into my perspective on the content structure.

First off the chapters. Usually this are larger zones with lots to do and a full trial. As a endgame PvE player, this is the best time of year because of the new trial. The zone, I don't really care for. Although I do agree that lots of people love the lore and the zone questing so it makes sense why this content is there. Looking at it from a constructive view I really can't argue about how they release the chapters once a year. They have a lot of content for a wide range of players and you almost always see a bump in player population during the chapter release.

Moving on to the zone DLC like the one upcoming. People like myself usually ignore it entirely. There is nothing in these updates that I am overly excited about other than the occasional set. The quests and stories tend to be rather short and the zones small. I see these as an extension of base game zones that most of us have done years ago. These DLCs are only for lore players.

Now onto the dungeon DLCs. To be blunt I find these a huge waste of resources for ZOS. Endgame players like myself have all this content done within a week of being launched. The hard modes tend to be easy, and therefore the trifectas are finished very quickly, sometimes finishing them within a couple attempts. For the questers and lore players, well that only gives them one play through to get the content they play the game for. These are the DLCs I think need to be reevaluated. The dungeons never provide any long lasting content and maybe some decent sets here or there in an already massive set pool. I never hear someone say "hey lets do x dungeon I love that place so much!", it is always "can you do x dungeon with me so I can farm this set". So my point, why does ZOS put so much effort into creating 4 dungeons per year that has very little replay value?

My solutions: First off would be stop putting out dungeons, or at least change one dungeon DLC to something else. I would love to replace one dungeon DLC a year (ie two dungeons) with a mini trial. That way a mini trial and a full trial are released every year. Trials have a lot more replay value because of the leaderboard system and the higher difficulty than 4 man dungeons. Talking about leaderboards, why not have a leaderboard system in dungeons? A harder difficulty in dungeons that drop gold items? These are things that may actually make dungeons worth running.

Why things are done the way it’s done right now:

1. Development Streamlining - the developers noted that it was difficult for the teams to develop wildly disparate zones during the course of a year. From Vvardenfell to Clockwork City to Summerset you find that the assets used are incredibly varied. It was stressful and time consuming to work on all of that.

With Elsweyr going forward the development team used the same assets (or previously used assets) for both dungeons and the zones allowing for more efficient development.

2. Player Expectations - players now know what they’re getting. Two area DLCS with a lot of content and two Dungeon DLCs. The Dungeon DLCs are really for the developers to focus on mechanics and performance updates. Racial changes, stat consolidation, and CP2.0 were all released as part of Dungeon DLCs

Pre Vvardenfell players weren’t quite sure what they would get. Wrothgar was released two years prior and in between players only got dungeons and small zone DLCs. That’s frustrating for those subscribing to ESO+. Currently the value of ESO+ with regards to DLC access is fantastic compared to say getting two small zones and dungeons back in the day.

3. Until game performance is improved and the backend updates completed to reduce the strain of the game don’t expect more mechanics, etc. The last generation console versions were barely able to handle the game as it was and ZOS had to go back and basically rewrite the game while it was still live to get it working. Pushing it harder now just isn’t in the cards.

_Zathras_

codierussell wrote: »

I would love to replace one dungeon DLC a year (ie two dungeons) with a mini trial. That way a mini trial and a full trial are released every year. Trials have a lot more replay value because of the leaderboard system and the higher difficulty than 4 man dungeons.

That was a very windy post to say that you wanted more trials.

At the end of the day, there is something for everyone. I feel that they are doing a fairly marvelous job to make sure the content they release hits as many notes as possible, as reflected in their customer's entertainment needs.

It doesn't need to be an Us vs Them, with a culling of content that one group doesn't find interesting.

Because, if they did that and listened to what I like to play, ESO would only have open worlds to explore, delves, and public dungeons. And crafting, of course. The rest can go away..especially Trials. Oh, and make Cyrodiil a PvE zone.

See how that goes?

Parasaurolophus

i disagree. I am one of those players for whom overland content is very tiresome. I also love lore and history, but I finish new dlc in three or four evenings and remain disappointed with the triviality of the gameplay. While dungeons become something for me to do by finding players in the chat at almost any time. And trial raids run on schedule.
New trials / mini-trials or arenas should be released as part of q4 dlc as it was before! Not instead of dungeons. I thought ZoS would no longer repeat Dragonhold's mistakes, but alas, ZoS thinks that a completely trivial location is fine.

NettleCarrier

"Now onto the dungeon DLCs. To be blunt I find these a huge waste of resources for ZOS. Endgame players like myself have all this content done within a week of being launched. The hard modes tend to be easy, and therefore the trifectas are finished very quickly, sometimes finishing them within a couple attempts." (Quoted - sorry, I didn't want to quote the entire post).

Consider yourself in the far minority for this. I'm about to hit CP2000 this week and I still don't feel this way and have very few trifectas complete because it requires other people to also be good. You're min/maxing content just to beat it and then complaining that there's nothing to do. Why not enjoy the journey instead? It's the same argument people make for "Vet Overland", difficulty for the sake of being difficult. You can always wear different sets, run with fewer people, remove CPs, etc. I'd rather new content be completable with some basic level of persistence then have something so nail-bitingly hard that it can never be done.

Parasaurolophus

NettleCarrier wrote: »

"Now onto the dungeon DLCs. To be blunt I find these a huge waste of resources for ZOS. Endgame players like myself have all this content done within a week of being launched. The hard modes tend to be easy, and therefore the trifectas are finished very quickly, sometimes finishing them within a couple attempts." (Quoted - sorry, I didn't want to quote the entire post).

Consider yourself in the far minority for this. I'm about to hit CP2000 this week and I still don't feel this way and have very few trifectas complete because it requires other people to also be good. You're min/maxing content just to beat it and then complaining that there's nothing to do. Why not enjoy the journey instead? It's the same argument people make for "Vet Overland", difficulty for the sake of being difficult. You can always wear different sets, run with fewer people, remove CPs, etc. I'd rather new content be completable with some basic level of persistence then have something so nail-bitingly hard that it can never be done.

Why do you blame us for doing min / max? Can we still forget how to play? After all, we don't have an endless power creep.

Amottica

Zenimax released a chapter with PvP content. It seemed that not enough PvP players were willing to pony up money to buy into the new PvP as Zos moved it to the base game. While the reasoning is an assumption it makes sense because Zenimax is in business to make money off this game. So if it is correct then Zenimax is probably not likely to waste money on developing a new PvP for the game.

I am speaking to the first major point made in the OP.

To the dungeon aspect, it takes much less work to create two dungeons than an entire zone and the more developed stories that go into it. Also, Zenimax has released mini-trials and arenas with the second zone DLC so Zenimax already does this.

Parasaurolophus

Amottica wrote: »

Zenimax released a chapter with PvP content. It seemed that not enough PvP players were willing to pony up money to buy into the new PvP as Zos moved it to the base game. While the reasoning is an assumption it makes sense because Zenimax is in business to make money off this game. So if it is correct then Zenimax is probably not likely to waste money on developing a new PvP for the game.

I am speaking to the first major point made in the OP.

To the dungeon aspect, it takes much less work to create two dungeons than an entire zone and the more developed stories that go into it. Also, Zenimax has released mini-trials and arenas with the second zone DLC so Zenimax already does this.

No, it doesn't. Deadlands is left without any high-end content.

NettleCarrier

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Why do you blame us for doing min / max? Can we still forget how to play? After all, we don't have an endless power creep.

Not blaming anyone, just pointing out that it is a self-imposed problem. This game does not have vertical scaling/power creep so maybe it's just not the best fit for that playstyle.

colossalvoids

You clearly like trials the most. Some like dungeon drops more and that's okay. I personally prefer when we are getting 4 dungeons, one trial and mini trial / arena without any "empty" dlcs like dragonhold or deadlands we're getting now providing almost zero content.

Honestly don't see trials as something "more worthy" than dungeons only because you progress slower and not getting teifecta patch day (usually). Can't really compare those, especially when at times targeted playerbase isn't even the same people for both despite being kina endgame'ish pve activities.

Hallothiel

I quite like the content & the schedule they now have - as pointed out upthread, prior to Morrowind it was much less certain as to what you were going to get.

And I heartily disagree about the dlcs. I think that the last two have had better stories & design than the main chapter. Just don’t charge through them when they drop & the complain you have nothing to do.

But then I have many characters and find replay value in all the zones. Can usually find something fresh each time.

(And I also do ‘endgame’. And pvp. And housing. 🙂)

Sylvermynx

Hallothiel wrote: »

I quite like the content & the schedule they now have - as pointed out upthread, prior to Morrowind it was much less certain as to what you were going to get.

And I heartily disagree about the dlcs. I think that the last two have had better stories & design than the main chapter. Just don’t charge through them when they drop & the complain you have nothing to do.

But then I have many characters and find replay value in all the zones. Can usually find something fresh each time.

(And I also do ‘endgame’. And pvp. And housing. 🙂)

That's how I feel as well. I enjoy the year long story arc, and even though I didn't like the Skyrim year (as I don't appreciate anything to do with werewolves or vampires), I still wander around the region doing some of the side quests (and I really DO love the Antiquarian's Gallery!) I too have many many alts, and therefore the content winds up being split up on quite a few different characters.

My mains are all doing Blackwood though - because Water's Edge is a superior house, and I want it on both accounts both PC megaservers - and I'm not interested in spending crowns for it, so I need to do the 26 quests so I can buy it for gold (already done on both my PC NA accounts).

I'm interested to see what next year brings! (I don't do endgame or pvp though....)

Amottica

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Zenimax released a chapter with PvP content. It seemed that not enough PvP players were willing to pony up money to buy into the new PvP as Zos moved it to the base game. While the reasoning is an assumption it makes sense because Zenimax is in business to make money off this game. So if it is correct then Zenimax is probably not likely to waste money on developing a new PvP for the game.

I am speaking to the first major point made in the OP.

To the dungeon aspect, it takes much less work to create two dungeons than an entire zone and the more developed stories that go into it. Also, Zenimax has released mini-trials and arenas with the second zone DLC so Zenimax already does this.

No, it doesn't. Deadlands is left without any high-end content.

I did not suggest they did it for each and every Zone DLC, though they have done it a good number of times since this cadence was started. It is clear Zenimax already has this idea and does it when they feel it is fitting. I do not think they should be held to offering specific things each release just as they change things up with the chapters.

Kiralyn2000

codierussell wrote: »

Now onto the dungeon DLCs. To be blunt I find these a huge waste of resources for ZOS. Endgame players like myself have all this content done within a week of being launched. The hard modes tend to be easy, and therefore the trifectas are finished very quickly, sometimes finishing them within a couple attempts. For the questers and lore players, well that only gives them one play through to get the content they play the game for. These are the DLCs I think need to be reevaluated. The dungeons never provide any long lasting content

I suppose it all depends on what one considers "done". (and what ZOS considers "done").

For some people, it's one run to see the story. For achievement hunters it's getting the hardmodes. For motif & set collectors, it might be several months of runs, depending on how hard they grind. For traders who sell the motifs, it might be a constant source (depending on demand for the motif). Etc.


Leaderboards? Meh.

zaria

whitecrow wrote: »

Well, I am not sure why you blow off the "zone DLC" as it is the conclusion to the year's story. It's pretty important.

I dislike this piecemeal release schedule. It was novel the first time (Elsweyr) but now it's just annoying. I was always under the impression that if I bought the main expansion the 2nd part ("zone DLC") was included but lately I have heard that it isn't the case? (I have had plus since it started so I would have access either way.) It's so confusing. I don't know if they make it intentionally confusing so that people accidentally overspend or what.

What I would really like them to do is simply release a full expansion whenever it is ready. Give us the whole thing, charge us more, fine.

Now the Elsweyr main story ended there then you took Rimen and installed the queen. The Southern Elsweyr was an new but connected story arch as i see it and say it worked much better than bringing the story to an sudden halt and repeating half an year later.

Maya_Nur

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

codierussell wrote: »

Recently, I have had many conversations about the direction for the content releases that ZOS has been implementing. For the last couple years it seems like they are okay with a chapter containing a zone and trial, a zone DLC and two dungeon DLCs. My question is why, and if the player base agrees with this? Now obviously all PvPers hate this because there is never any new PvP content, hence why PvP is so scarce lately. But I wanted to dive into my perspective on the content structure.

First off the chapters. Usually this are larger zones with lots to do and a full trial. As a endgame PvE player, this is the best time of year because of the new trial. The zone, I don't really care for. Although I do agree that lots of people love the lore and the zone questing so it makes sense why this content is there. Looking at it from a constructive view I really can't argue about how they release the chapters once a year. They have a lot of content for a wide range of players and you almost always see a bump in player population during the chapter release.

Moving on to the zone DLC like the one upcoming. People like myself usually ignore it entirely. There is nothing in these updates that I am overly excited about other than the occasional set. The quests and stories tend to be rather short and the zones small. I see these as an extension of base game zones that most of us have done years ago. These DLCs are only for lore players.

Now onto the dungeon DLCs. To be blunt I find these a huge waste of resources for ZOS. Endgame players like myself have all this content done within a week of being launched. The hard modes tend to be easy, and therefore the trifectas are finished very quickly, sometimes finishing them within a couple attempts. For the questers and lore players, well that only gives them one play through to get the content they play the game for. These are the DLCs I think need to be reevaluated. The dungeons never provide any long lasting content and maybe some decent sets here or there in an already massive set pool. I never hear someone say "hey lets do x dungeon I love that place so much!", it is always "can you do x dungeon with me so I can farm this set". So my point, why does ZOS put so much effort into creating 4 dungeons per year that has very little replay value?

My solutions: First off would be stop putting out dungeons, or at least change one dungeon DLC to something else. I would love to replace one dungeon DLC a year (ie two dungeons) with a mini trial. That way a mini trial and a full trial are released every year. Trials have a lot more replay value because of the leaderboard system and the higher difficulty than 4 man dungeons. Talking about leaderboards, why not have a leaderboard system in dungeons? A harder difficulty in dungeons that drop gold items? These are things that may actually make dungeons worth running.

Why things are done the way it’s done right now:

1. ...

2. Player Expectations - players now know what they’re getting. Two area DLCS with a lot of content and two Dungeon DLCs. The Dungeon DLCs are really for the developers to focus on mechanics and performance updates. Racial changes, stat consolidation, and CP2.0 were all released as part of Dungeon DLCs

Pre Vvardenfell players weren’t quite sure what they would get. Wrothgar was released two years prior and in between players only got dungeons and small zone DLCs. That’s frustrating for those subscribing to ESO+. Currently the value of ESO+ with regards to DLC access is fantastic compared to say getting two small zones and dungeons back in the day.

3. ...

I have to disagree with you about player's expectations. Well, yeah, technically you are right, but in fact player still doesn't know what quality an approaching content has. Let me explain.

Elsweyr as a first experience was pretty decent, even though I am not a fan of khajiity theme, but some problems appeared already then: the first – it is locking the story ending behind the necessity of buying both Chapter and zone-DLC; and the second – incompletion in details, I mean when I'm buying a khajity zone, I am expecting to see every khajity furstock at least, there is no more excuses like "They just live in a different area!" because now we saw their native homeland.

Moving next. Greymoore, the zone I am not visiting despite I like Skyrim. It is small and there is nothing to do after a completion of everything. I did not see it on the PTS and was dissapointed that the WESTERN SKYRIM is just a WEST OF THE WESTERN SKYRIM. Black reach was good, but still it is not what I as player have expected.

The last one. Blackwood. Oh god... I honestly love this game, but it is the first expansion I regret spending money. I tried to not rush it, but have completed the whole chapter in THREE evenings! Then I said "Ok, location itself is nice so I can at least farm resources here..." but the placing of nodes was so poor and wide spread compared to Summerset, so I just gave up. Companions? Well, this was a great intrigue or maybe a dark horse, because no one asked for them, but an idea is great. Eh... You already knew what we have got. There is still no information about future companions or any updates like visible helmets. Deadlands DLC? I love daedric them as far as I play sorceress, so I appreciate new daedric lore. But again, after I complete it, will there be something for me to do? What will bring me back there every single day? Summerset holds me in itself for years because it's good. I'm going to buy an Agony's Ascent, but it's different, because I have to pay more money than I already spent on Blackwood, Greymoor and Elsweyr put together. Is this what players expect to find?

Elsonso

Maya_Nur wrote: »

The last one. Blackwood. Oh god... I honestly love this game, but it is the first expansion I regret spending money. I tried to not rush it, but have completed the whole chapter in THREE evenings! Then I said "Ok, location itself is nice so I can at least farm resources here..." but the placing of nodes was so poor and wide spread compared to Summerset, so I just gave up. Companions? Well, this was a great intrigue or maybe a dark horse, because no one asked for them, but an idea is great. Eh... You already knew what we have got. There is still no information about future companions or any updates like visible helmets. Deadlands DLC? I love daedric them as far as I play sorceress, so I appreciate new daedric lore. But again, after I complete it, will there be something for me to do? What will bring me back there every single day? Summerset holds me in itself for years because it's good. I'm going to buy an Agony's Ascent, but it's different, because I have to pay more money than I already spent on Blackwood, Greymoor and Elsweyr put together. Is this what players expect to find?

You sort of lost me with the comparison to Summerset. Visually, it is very attractive, and is the best looking overland content in the game. Outside of that, i can't think of a reason to like it. I do consider it to be the worst of the Chapters, although, you may be correct in that Blackwood is the new worst Chapter.

Adremal

I don't think it's a matter of pacing, but of quality. The Skyrim/Reach year for instance was good for me because it gave us a lot of variety, closing with a solo Arena in the Reach, which is the content I liked the most. The main questline and side-quests were also very well done and interesting in my opinion, and the zones were functional.
On the other hand Blackwood had a very boring main quest, so boring I didn't finish it till a month ago or so, some good side-quests here and there, and an enormous, half-empty land. It reminds me of Cyrodiil only without the trains and lag. Hubs are so far from each other, you have to run unnecessarily through empty, meaningless space lacking chests, nodes, mobs and above all detail. The main hubs are OK, but the interesting wilderness we were promised just isn't there. Trees aren't even thick enough to go on exploring, you can see as far as LoS allows it, which is a lot. Filled with a lot of nothing. And the portal mechanic was super boring - I really hope they revert to standard invasions. Harrowstorms were better, Geysers were better, hell Anchors are better.
On the neutral side Blackwood came with some very nice houses, sadly the manors are unusable without closing off areas because of the strangling 700 limit. Something the size of Varlaisvea would require at least double that, and while I appreciate the team putting more expensive furniture in the furnished version, starting off with 271/700 should tell the team something. And that 700 turns into 350 for non-subscribers, although to be honest I don't really see a non-subscriber buying a manor... still. Sweetwater is better because it's smaller, so perhaps one could do with 700... but Varlaisvea, Pantherfang and the Daedric shrine with portals? No way. A good example of size:furnishing limit example would be Water's Edge - with 600 slots you can really do whatever you want in it. And it's absurd to have a limit of 600 in such a small house compared to 100 more for houses that are what, 10 times larger if not more.

Elsonso

Adremal wrote: »

On the other hand Blackwood had a very boring main quest, so boring I didn't finish it till a month ago or so, some good side-quests here and there, and an enormous, half-empty land. It reminds me of Cyrodiil only without the trains and lag. Hubs are so far from each other, you have to run unnecessarily through empty, meaningless space lacking chests, nodes, mobs and above all detail. The main hubs are OK, but the interesting wilderness we were promised just isn't there. Trees aren't even thick enough to go on exploring, you can see as far as LoS allows it, which is a lot. Filled with a lot of nothing

I don't want to pile on ZOS more than I have, but I do agree about the trees and half-empty land. Blackwood is more Central Park than National Forest.

What I expected...


What Amazon Game Studio delivered...


What ZOS delivered...


("Yay" for ZOS making it rain so much while I am in the game, by the way... )

Hallothiel

I am going to suggest some sort of Godwin’s Law in relation to comments comparing New World & ESO……..

Adremal

Elsonso wrote: »

Adremal wrote: »

On the other hand Blackwood had a very boring main quest, so boring I didn't finish it till a month ago or so, some good side-quests here and there, and an enormous, half-empty land. It reminds me of Cyrodiil only without the trains and lag. Hubs are so far from each other, you have to run unnecessarily through empty, meaningless space lacking chests, nodes, mobs and above all detail. The main hubs are OK, but the interesting wilderness we were promised just isn't there. Trees aren't even thick enough to go on exploring, you can see as far as LoS allows it, which is a lot. Filled with a lot of nothing

I don't want to pile on ZOS more than I have, but I do agree about the trees and half-empty land. Blackwood is more Central Park than National Forest.

What I expected...


What Amazon Game Studio delivered...


What ZOS delivered...


("Yay" for ZOS making it rain so much while I am in the game, by the way... )

Yes, New World is very pretty. However to me that was about it, and gladly and relatively quickly came back to ESO (though I don't spend time in Blackwood, I even found myself disregarding the dailies).