Overland Content Feedback Thread

StevieKingslayer

@newtinmpls

I apologize for not being around at your play time to help you out, because I gladly would have. Im always answering calls in zone from others in need of help with stuff. That wouldn't ever stop if I had a veteran zone with a shared chat.

I would always go back to help others in their time of need, even if it meant helping a dude at a newbie level dolmen. The idea that we would abandon people who may need help is just...nonsensical. End gamers still need others, Because we need you to grow and join us to run other content. We would never abandon. (Well, the decent ones anyway)

LashanW

newtinmpls wrote: »

newtinmpls wrote: »

I have NOT seen requests (AND offers of money) for:
Personal or guild hall "battlegrounds" setups
An INDIVIDUAL toggle to nerf a character (because knowing ZoS it would totally be per character)

LashanW wrote: »

What is most needed for PvP is performance improvements for Cyrodiil and fixes for age old but still game breaking bugs.

Which is nice, and even true, but completely ignores the point.

Not trying to ignore the point. If you log in to the game and ping was 999+ all the time, you probably won't stay around and get invested enough to start making feature requests and offer money. I like PvP. But I'm ignoring PvP part of the game now because even basic functionality is no longer there. What's the point of making feature requests and offering money when you can't even play the game properly?
Anyways it feels like derailing thread so will stop here.

newtinmpls wrote: »

So you would pay for a "Vet" toggle? What would that include and how would you know you were getting it?

What I am getting at is:
Define what you want in terms that could be "applied" per character because that's what ZoS seems to be willing to do for monies.

What I want (and what I will pay for) is the ability to choose normal and veteran difficulty when going into overland zones. Just like in trials, arenas and dungeons. The instance should treat everyone inside the same (same rules). I don't know whether it'd make sense to sell this "per character". If they go for that route I'd probably ignore it (tbh I might be tempted to buy it once on my main, if they actually make separate instances). Just like I ignore buying outfit slots/ armory slots atm.

Steven19eighty101

Sometimes I would like a break from Dungeons and trials and just do my own thing overland and enjoy the storyline and explore but its just to dam easy! I am a 70k mag sorc and everything just melts instantly and I can only imagine what it is like for someone hitting 90k plus. I understand this must be a hard problem to solve because there are so many players of different skill levels but surely there is someway to split it up a bit so the endgame players can do some questing and at least find it mildly challenging. Slightly harder overland zones could also be a place for players wanting to move on to veteran Dungeons and trials to practice their combat skills so they are not going straight into the fire and getting yelled at by some idiot over the voice mic like I once did hahaha. A lot of people say It cant be made difficult because its for the new players to enjoy..... I don't agree with that one bit.

SilverBride

Steven19eighty101 wrote: »

A lot of people say It cant be made difficult because its for the new players to enjoy..... I don't agree with that one bit.

If they force increased difficulty on everyone they will lose a lot of players.
If they lose a lot of players they will bring in a lot less revenue.
If they bring in a lot less revenue they risk having to shut down.

This is why any option must be optional.

Steven19eighty101

SilverBride wrote: »

Steven19eighty101 wrote: »

A lot of people say It cant be made difficult because its for the new players to enjoy..... I don't agree with that one bit.

If they force increased difficulty on everyone they will lose a lot of players.
If they lose a lot of players they will bring in a lot less revenue.
If they bring in a lot less revenue they risk having to shut down.

This is why any option must be optional.

Yep definitely wasn't saying force it on everyone, optional for sure.

Sylvermynx

LashanW wrote: »

Not trying to ignore the point. If you log in to the game and ping was 999+ all the time, you probably won't stay around and get invested enough to start making feature requests and offer money. I like PvP. But I'm ignoring PvP part of the game now because even basic functionality is no longer there. What's the point of making feature requests and offering money when you can't even play the game properly?
Anyways it feels like derailing thread so will stop here.

Well.... My ping averages 750ms+ - on a GOOD day. Not only have I stayed around, I'm past the 3.5 years mark (and btw, for the first year I played my ping was always over 999 because the other satellite provider is nowhere near as good as HughesNet). I sub two accounts, paying annually on both, and buy extra crowns; I buy houses with gold and crowns, mounts, costumes, pets.... And yes, I am one who has asked for things and offered to "throw money at ZOS".

Of course, that high ping is why I'm not interested in "vet" anything - I have a very hard time killing 3+ mobs, and quest bosses are NOT EASY for me due to high ping and aging reflexes.

ShalidorsHeir

After all i read so far --> there is no argument against an optional veteran instance per zone but a lot of players would be happy with that, some even coming back to overland. Which also means the amount of players for the content that requires most effort can be increased with a relatively low effort. From a marketing perspective that makes sense.

Lysette

Sylvermynx wrote: »

LashanW wrote: »

Not trying to ignore the point. If you log in to the game and ping was 999+ all the time, you probably won't stay around and get invested enough to start making feature requests and offer money. I like PvP. But I'm ignoring PvP part of the game now because even basic functionality is no longer there. What's the point of making feature requests and offering money when you can't even play the game properly?
Anyways it feels like derailing thread so will stop here.

Well.... My ping averages 750ms+ - on a GOOD day. Not only have I stayed around, I'm past the 3.5 years mark (and btw, for the first year I played my ping was always over 999 because the other satellite provider is nowhere near as good as HughesNet). I sub two accounts, paying annually on both, and buy extra crowns; I buy houses with gold and crowns, mounts, costumes, pets.... And yes, I am one who has asked for things and offered to "throw money at ZOS".

Of course, that high ping is why I'm not interested in "vet" anything - I have a very hard time killing 3+ mobs, and quest bosses are NOT EASY for me due to high ping and aging reflexes.

those aging reflexes don't matter with that high ping anyway - you have to guess what the enemy is doing next to get something done against it in time - due to ping this is more guess work than actually reactive combat - and therefore no one would have better reaction times in this case.

Btw now where I have you right here - what did you do with the meadow in Elsweyr - I somewhat like that spot, but I have no good idea what to put on it.

Lysette

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

After all i read so far --> there is no argument against an optional veteran instance per zone but a lot of players would be happy with that, some even coming back to overland. Which also means the amount of players for the content that requires most effort can be increased with a relatively low effort. From a marketing perspective that makes sense.

Yeah, why would we be against it - but ZOS might just not want to do it, because it requires renting a lot more server blades (assuming here that the game is in rented cloud space).

Even I would be interested in it, it would give me a reason to progress past level 50 and speed up my levelling. Well, I explain why - all I'm interested in is overland content - I'm not interested in veteran dungeons and other stuff like this - but I will not have done most of the overland content when I will reach level 50 - and I fear, that it will not be fun to play overland content at or beyond level 50 - that is why I play so slow paced and try to avoid to level up or just a few times per year and character - so this would eventually be something for me as well and a reason to not having to throttle myself to have fun.

Sylvermynx

Lysette wrote: »

those aging reflexes don't matter with that high ping anyway - you have to guess what the enemy is doing next to get something done against it in time - due to ping this is more guess work than actually reactive combat - and therefore no one would have better reaction times in this case.

Btw now where I have you right here - what did you do with the meadow in Elsweyr - I somewhat like that spot, but I have no good idea what to put on it.

Well, that's true also about the ping and reflexes - then again I never was good at "twitchy" combat. Of course I'm not the only one with high ping - anyone who plays from AU or SEA - maybe not as high as sat, but I've seen those players post about 350+....

I haven't done much with the meadow yet - I keep getting sidetracked by other houses! My plan is a seraglio-like atmosphere for my Khajiit - one "lord and master" and a half dozen "harem" cats.... I've got some tents and stuff squirreled away, thinking I might do something like I've always imagined Burton's The Thousand Nights and One Night would have been.

ShalidorsHeir

Lysette wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

After all i read so far --> there is no argument against an optional veteran instance per zone but a lot of players would be happy with that, some even coming back to overland. Which also means the amount of players for the content that requires most effort can be increased with a relatively low effort. From a marketing perspective that makes sense.

Yeah, why would we be against it - but ZOS might just not want to do it, because it requires renting a lot more server blades (assuming here that the game is in rented cloud space).

Even I would be interested in it, it would give me a reason to progress past level 50 and speed up my levelling. Well, I explain why - all I'm interested in is overland content - I'm not interested in veteran dungeons are other stuff like this - but I will not have done most of the overland content when I will reach level 50 - and I fear, that it will not be fun to play overland content at or beyond level 50 - that is why I play so slow paced and try to avoid to level up or just a few times per year and character - so this would eventually be something for me as well and a reason to not having to throttle myself to have fun.

I would like to disagree with you in one point: ZOS is already listening since they opened this thread. So if we, the community, can show reasonable agruments in how this extention is a gain for the game they earn money with it will be considered. So we do not need to argue whether ZOS will do it or not. They will do it for the same reason they keep extenting this game for the past years. As result we should take this chance.

SilverBride

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

After all i read so far --> there is no argument against an optional veteran instance per zone but a lot of players would be happy with that, some even coming back to overland. Which also means the amount of players for the content that requires most effort can be increased with a relatively low effort. From a marketing perspective that makes sense.

There is actually a lot of resistance against a separate veteran overland with many reasons given why we think this would be bad for the game. It was also noted by Rich Lambert in a Twitch stream that it would require a lot of work to implement.

Click SPOILER for a written transcript of the complete stream.

Can we get a vet mode for delves and quests? Uh, so we had that ... at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out. We put the challenge into World Bosses, and into solo Arenas, and into Dungeons and Trials.

[Speaks about skyshards then returns to the topic.]

People didn't do it because they had to go through their own alliance first? That's not actually true. A ton of people completed their own alliance storylines to get to silver and gold. A ton of people did. People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff.

I get there’s a lot of people that do like the harder difficulty, but a HUGE portion of our player base just wants to do story, and they don’t want to have to struggle with difficult things. And so that was why we did what we did and said story is soloable and crit path will always be soloable and if you want the extra challenge you can go seek out other things to challenge you.

I totally hear you on the difficulty thing. I like things to be more difficult. But you know, the data doesn’t lie. And we have never been more successful than we are today. And a lot of that has to do with just how much freedom players have to go and experience story.

And yes, go look at Craglorn. There’s not a lot of people in Craglorn and that’s not super difficult but it’s more hard than the regular overland.

Would it be an option just to give people the choice? It is not as simple as just flip a switch and make things more difficult. There is a TON of work and then as Lucky mentioned earlier you have to also incentivize that. Like just making something more difficult for no reason, if you’re not going to get anything out of it why do it? The satisfaction's there sure but players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time.

So, you know like I said, we went down that route. We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it.

There is also resistance by some for using a debuff.

The one thing that seems to be more widely supported is challenge banners for story bosses, and possibly other overland bosses.

Lysette

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

those aging reflexes don't matter with that high ping anyway - you have to guess what the enemy is doing next to get something done against it in time - due to ping this is more guess work than actually reactive combat - and therefore no one would have better reaction times in this case.

Btw now where I have you right here - what did you do with the meadow in Elsweyr - I somewhat like that spot, but I have no good idea what to put on it.

Well, that's true also about the ping and reflexes - then again I never was good at "twitchy" combat. Of course I'm not the only one with high ping - anyone who plays from AU or SEA - maybe not as high as sat, but I've seen those players post about 350+....

I haven't done much with the meadow yet - I keep getting sidetracked by other houses! My plan is a seraglio-like atmosphere for my Khajiit - one "lord and master" and a half dozen "harem" cats.... I've got some tents and stuff squirreled away, thinking I might do something like I've always imagined Burton's The Thousand Nights and One Night would have been.

yeah 360ms it was to the EU server from AU - but something changed, I have now about 240-260ms to the EU server and can finally sometimes escape the red because I see it early enough. This has improved my gameplay a lot, because now I can use a few tactical things as well, like bashing enemies in time and so.

Did you get the enchanted snow globe house - it is kind of a small, but quite cosy house with a spacy cellar, used as a bed chamber, but I will use that as well for crafting and my armory - well and to display trophies I unearthed from excavations.

ShalidorsHeir

SilverBride wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

After all i read so far --> there is no argument against an optional veteran instance per zone but a lot of players would be happy with that, some even coming back to overland. Which also means the amount of players for the content that requires most effort can be increased with a relatively low effort. From a marketing perspective that makes sense.

There is actually a lot of resistance against a separate veteran overland with many reasons given why we think this would be bad for the game. It was also noted by Rich Lambert in a Twitch stream that it would require a lot of work to implement.

Click SPOILER for a written transcript of the complete stream.

Can we get a vet mode for delves and quests? Uh, so we had that ... at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out. We put the challenge into World Bosses, and into solo Arenas, and into Dungeons and Trials.

[Speaks about skyshards then returns to the topic.]

People didn't do it because they had to go through their own alliance first? That's not actually true. A ton of people completed their own alliance storylines to get to silver and gold. A ton of people did. People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff.

I get there’s a lot of people that do like the harder difficulty, but a HUGE portion of our player base just wants to do story, and they don’t want to have to struggle with difficult things. And so that was why we did what we did and said story is soloable and crit path will always be soloable and if you want the extra challenge you can go seek out other things to challenge you.

I totally hear you on the difficulty thing. I like things to be more difficult. But you know, the data doesn’t lie. And we have never been more successful than we are today. And a lot of that has to do with just how much freedom players have to go and experience story.

And yes, go look at Craglorn. There’s not a lot of people in Craglorn and that’s not super difficult but it’s more hard than the regular overland.

Would it be an option just to give people the choice? It is not as simple as just flip a switch and make things more difficult. There is a TON of work and then as Lucky mentioned earlier you have to also incentivize that. Like just making something more difficult for no reason, if you’re not going to get anything out of it why do it? The satisfaction's there sure but players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time.

So, you know like I said, we went down that route. We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it.

There is also resistance by some for using a debuff.

The one thing that seems to be more widely supported is challenge banners for story bosses, and possibly other overland bosses.

As written in my previous comments: Rich made this statement considering that there is only one instance for everything and so people were forced. Also we had much less content and the average player had achieved a way less than the player base today with more content variety. Meaning: this statement is from my point of view not accurate anymore.
>>Would it be an option just to give people the choice? It is not as simple as just flip a switch and make things more difficult. There is a TON of work and then as Lucky mentioned earlier you have to also incentivize that. Like just making something more difficult for no reason, if you’re not going to get anything out of it why do it? The satisfaction's there sure but players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time.

I would disagree here as well - players who actually want more difficult content these days do NOT necessarily want it for the sake of "gain" or progress (per hour). I, for instance, have basically everything of value for me, i play for joy - call me heretic but i dont even do crafting dailies cuz it would be a waste of time for me - what i can not enjoy is overland in its current state ... just an assumption but i guess most of the pro arguers share an at least similiar or relatable opinion about that. So, yes he is right for the majority of players considering that there is only one place to be and everything is just about progress--> an optional instance would be populated by the rest of the players who simply feel more comfortable there. And yes, as this thread shows, they exist.

And once more: this never was about determin' the majority of players - it is about an extention to reach for more players since it is a more and more upcoming topic in the forums.

Lysette

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

After all i read so far --> there is no argument against an optional veteran instance per zone but a lot of players would be happy with that, some even coming back to overland. Which also means the amount of players for the content that requires most effort can be increased with a relatively low effort. From a marketing perspective that makes sense.

Yeah, why would we be against it - but ZOS might just not want to do it, because it requires renting a lot more server blades (assuming here that the game is in rented cloud space).

Even I would be interested in it, it would give me a reason to progress past level 50 and speed up my levelling. Well, I explain why - all I'm interested in is overland content - I'm not interested in veteran dungeons are other stuff like this - but I will not have done most of the overland content when I will reach level 50 - and I fear, that it will not be fun to play overland content at or beyond level 50 - that is why I play so slow paced and try to avoid to level up or just a few times per year and character - so this would eventually be something for me as well and a reason to not having to throttle myself to have fun.

I would like to disagree with you in one point: ZOS is already listening since they opened this thread. So if we, the community, can show reasonable agruments in how this extention is a gain for the game they earn money with it will be considered. So we do not need to argue whether ZOS will do it or not. They will do it for the same reason they keep extenting this game for the past years. As result we should take this chance.

Yeah, but what we would eventually really need is some difficulty in the middle of vanilla and veteran - there is nothing really like this - so if this veteran overland would be much harder, it would please veterans, but I might not have fun there in this case - there is no middle ground yet, maybe something in between veteran and vanilla difficulty would be good or make it veteran with some kind of scaling like in the vanilla game based on the amount of CP someone has for example.

Lysette

I think Rich made a valid point this is my experience with MMOs as well - players go for gain per hour and not fun per hour. Not everyone does, but in general that is a true statement. If people would prioritize fun per hour there wouldn't be complains about grind - you just have grind, if you force yourself to do the gain per hour activity even it isn't fun to do.

I think the reward thing is actually not a problem in a veteran area - just up the CP gain compared to other activities and good, there does not have to be more gold or better items, if it lowers the CP grind, this would be a good reward already.

ShalidorsHeir

Lysette wrote: »

I think Rich made a valid point this my experience with MMOs as well players go for gain per hour and not fun per hour.

>>And once more: this never was about determin' the majority of players - it is about an extention to reach for more players since it is a more and more upcoming topic in the forums.

maybe i should have added this the top of my comment.

We have gain per hour already which seems not be enough as one can see reading all the comments in this thread, including my own opinion. Gain per hour always means you either are interested in ending up somewhere - most players simply like the overland for the story mode - not for gain per hour as you can see a lot people on both sides. In generla we can not talk about gain per hour when it comes to questing and exploration ...

OR you do not already have everything you want. I only think in FUN independent of its unit of measurement. The more the better.

Lysette

But if they invest into it - by offering veteran instances, they have to make sure, that enough people are using it and that there is something to gain from them - additional instances require additional server power - which could in the worst of cases be a core for any region there is in the game - so where does the compensation for that investment come from?

I think here of statements some made - like I can beat 200k in 5 seconds - well, I can do like 10% of that - so the gap is that high, that if it is good for that guy, it would be a nightmare for me - and worthless for my characters. There has to be a middle ground - that gap is just too huge for good - what is fun for him, would be catastrophic for me - and I wouldn't be able to use it - and I guess most wouldn't be able to. These kind of players have overpowered themselves and to cater to them would just be plain wrong and not gain ZOS anything really.

SilverBride

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

As written in my previous comments: Rich made this statement considering that there is only one instance for everything and so people were forced. Also we had much less content and the average player had achieved a way less than the player base today with more content variety. Meaning: this statement is from my point of view not accurate anymore.

The twitch stream was from just a few months ago so Rich's answers when asked if we could get veteran overland or an optional one are not outdated. My main point though was in reply to your statement that no one argued against a veteran overland, when in fact many have.

Captain_OP

SilverBride wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

After all i read so far --> there is no argument against an optional veteran instance per zone but a lot of players would be happy with that, some even coming back to overland. Which also means the amount of players for the content that requires most effort can be increased with a relatively low effort. From a marketing perspective that makes sense.

There is actually a lot of resistance against a separate veteran overland with many reasons given why we think this would be bad for the game. It was also noted by Rich Lambert in a Twitch stream that it would require a lot of work to implement.

Where is the resistance you are talking about?
Every comment that is positive for vet overland/story content has much more awesome, insightful and agree then the comments against it.

And like others already said, could you please stop using Rich Lambert as an argument for this discussion?

You have been told many times now that this discussion is not about the amount of ressources or worktime or anything of that. Yes Rich Lambert said something, but would they open a discussion of something that they couldnt do? NO! This discussion is about the game and if it makes sense to make overland/story more challanging. NOT ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF IT.

And to be clear, the only real contra argument that was delivered so far, is that the player base could get fragmented further. Which was discussed and solved with a shared zone chat.

If you want to be taken serious any more in this discussion, than make a productive discussion and deliver some better contra arguments than the little resistance and the one quote that Rich Lambert once have said.

And one does not simple, why resistance?
After all that have been discussed the solutions would change nothing in normal mode. Some said it could be even a better experience for normal mode player, because the high dps players dont one hit the quest and public dungeon bosses anymore.

Edit:Typo

Lysette

So lets get to the cake - where does additional revenue for ZOS come from, if they invest in more server power to run these instances - tell me this - will you be paying for the additional server power on a regular basis - like having a veteran subscription on top of ESO+?

There are about 40 regions, not counting some of the special zones which require own instances as well - this takes at least 4 new server blades. Well, and they need it for pc and console and for the EU and US servers - so this is an investment and creates costs on a regular basis, which are not just to be thrown under the rug - this is serious money and someone has to pay for it - will you do it?

Captain_OP

Lysette wrote: »

So lets get to the cake - where does additional revenue for ZOS come from, if they invest in more server power to run these instances - tell me this - will you be paying for the additional server power on a regular basis - like having a veteran subscription on top of ESO+?

There are no additional instances need, because the whole game is already instanced with multiple instances per zone. And like me and other already said are the technical solutions not up to us. And if you want to know how they could enrich themself on it, then is the anweser a short: "Make it for all the new chapters and dlcs exclusive and after you got enough, release it for the other zones aswell."

Edit: Typo

SilverBride

Captain_OP wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

There is actually a lot of resistance against a separate veteran overland with many reasons given why we think this would be bad for the game. It was also noted by Rich Lambert in a Twitch stream that it would require a lot of work to implement.

Where is the resistance you are talking about?
Every comment that is positive for vet overland/story content has much more awesome, insightful and agree then the comments against it.

The resistance is "the comments against it" referred to above.

We can't go just by the number of agrees because there is no option to disagree with a post. But there are multiple posts in this and previous threads arguing against a separate veteran overland starting with page 1 of this thread.

Lysette

Captain_OP wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

So lets get to the cake - where does additional revenue for ZOS come from, if they invest in more server power to run these instances - tell me this - will you be paying for the additional server power on a regular basis - like having a veteran subscription on top of ESO+?

There are no additional instances need, because the whole game is already instanced with multiple instances per zone. And like me and other already said are the technical solutions not up to us. And if you want to know how they could enrich themself on it, then is the anweser a short: "Make it for all the new chapters and dlcs exclusive and after you got enough, release it for the other zones aswell."

Edit: Typo

every running instance needs at least 1 core and memory assigned to it - if you expect that to be a free service, you are wrong, it will cost you dearly - this is serious investment required, because in the worst case someone is in any of those regions and you need 40+ cores to run these regions - per server - and there are 4 of them - so this is not just a case of "it's there already".

ShalidorsHeir

@Lysette we dont pay for games directly these days. Nothing personal but it works as follows: people buying stuff in ingame stores are running the game for everyone, also for the ones not buying anything.

There are zones already empty right now and people do not seriously care about that. besides that i am confident that this change will bring more players to overland content - where the normal instance stays almost untouched and the veteran is going to be not as filled as normal cuz the majority of player is still around on normal cuz they are casually gaming. The vetaeran instance would be the extension for all the ones that want more. Besides that: the amount of players is the same. No matter where these players are. So the effort for ZOS would be to make their resource management more efficient. But this is technical stuff - both of us have no clue how it looks in depth. And that is therefore imo not an argument for this discussion. You dont know what is needed .The context of this thread is not of the implementation of the feature. It is about determin if it would be reasonable. It is again about making content attractive to as many players as possible, especially since this is the content ZOS is making advertisemnt and money with and the base of why ESO is so successful and why there is ES in ESO.

SilverBride

Captain_OP wrote: »

There are no additional instances need, because the whole game is already instanced with multiple instances per zone.

The identical instances of the megaserver to accommodate how many people are playing at one time is not the same as an instance with completely different difficulty and mechanics. These new instances with veteran difficulty would have to be created and applied to every platform, then maintained.

Lysette

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

@Lysette we dont pay for games directly these days. Nothing personal but it works as follows: people buying stuff in ingame stores are running the game for everyone, also for the ones not buying anything.

There are zones already empty right now and people do not seriously care about that. besides that i am confident that this change will bring more players to overland content - where the normal instance stays almost untouched and the veteran is going to be not as filled as normal cuz the majority of player is still around on normal cuz they are casually gaming. The vetaeran instance would be the extension for all the ones that want more. Besides that: the amount of players is the same. No matter where these players are. So the effort for ZOS would be to make their resource management more efficient. But this is technical stuff - both of us have no clue how it looks in depth. And that is therefore imo not an argument for this discussion. You dont know what is needed .The context of this thread is not of the implementation of the feature. It is about determin if it would be reasonable. It is again about making content attractive to as many players as possible, especially since this is the content ZOS is making advertisemnt and money with and the base of why ESO is so successful and why there is ES in ESO.

from where do you know that I have no clue about the technology of such a server system - I actually have.

Vulkunne

Lysette wrote: »

So lets get to the cake - where does additional revenue for ZOS come from, if they invest in more server power to run these instances - tell me this - will you be paying for the additional server power on a regular basis - like having a veteran subscription on top of ESO+?

There are about 40 regions, not counting some of the special zones which require own instances as well - this takes at least 4 new server blades. Well, and they need it for pc and console and for the EU and US servers - so this is an investment and creates costs on a regular basis, which are not just to be thrown under the rug - this is serious money and someone has to pay for it - will you do it?

CAKE?!!?? Did somebody say Cake... Oh wait. lol

In all seriousness though, this opens up a whole other can of worms regarding Server performance in places like PvP, let alone PvE.

Did they not say something from end of last year about upgrading server performance?

And yeah I would pay for improved server performance in PvP as part of my sub.

SilverBride

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

The context of this thread is not of the implementation of the feature. It is about determin if it would be reasonable.

This thread is to discuss our feedback on overland content. A separate veteran overland is one of the suggestions some posters have made but it is not the intended focus of this thread.

Lysette

SilverBride wrote: »

Captain_OP wrote: »

There are no additional instances need, because the whole game is already instanced with multiple instances per zone.

The identical instances of the megaserver to accommodate how many people are playing at one time is not the same as an instance with completely different difficulty and mechanics. These new instances with veteran difficulty would have to be created and applied to every platform, then maintained.

yeah that is the problem, it requires not just new servers but as well more staff to care about it - this is not a simple upgrade, but a serious investment.