Overland Content Feedback Thread

FlopsyPrince

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

This would be a lot of work for a very short play experience for a limited number of people. New content in any MMO is consumed at a fast rate already. Designing content (or updating it) for a smaller subset would take a lot of time to properly tune and then would likely only be interesting for a while, as Harrowstorms and such have shown.

I was hoping to see some notable exceptions to this in past questions I asked, but I did not. (Perhaps I missed them, but I find that unlikely.) Please tell me how this would not be true if you believe it would not.

How would the financial cost of all this work be offset by the benefits if this is true?

You're misrepresenting the argument by downplaying the number of people this affects as if it's a small handful of neckbeards that don't touch grass. The power creep problem is readily apparent in the open world and from what I've observed, CP300 is when players are basically one-shotting enemies in overland. The game is eight years old and there's been 15+ DLCs including five retail expansion packs. Even someone who only touches the game once a year when chapters release would be able to reach CP300. That's nothing, especially after CP2.0 essentially cut the XP needed in half.

That was not the intent of what I wrote. It would take a whole lot more than that minimal number of players to justify the costs involved. A LOT more. Please do not twist what I am saying. You are free to disagree, but I would expect anything they devote serious time to would be cost justified by its positive financial contribution, not just for a portion of the players.

How many players are in the category you note? 10-20% of the playerbase? More? Less? How much revenue do those players drive?

Remember to separate those who want harder overland content and those who will quit (or not start) if they do not get it. I am asserting it is relatively low, but it would only be worth all the work

I'm in four super casual guilds on PC-NA that allow me to log out for six months and still be in them so they allow varying levels of lengthy inactivity. In one guild that has players that haven't logged in up to 40 months, over a third of the 471 players we have are above CP300. The others that don't keep inactive members around for years, the overwhelming majority of players in them are above CP300. I look around the open world and out of 25 people completely at random prime time, 16 of them were above the level of CP300. I observe combat encounters outside the cities, the vast majority of mobs are killed in a blink of an eye.

A sizable portion of the playerbase is capable of steamrolling the overwhelming majority of content being sold to us every year. What's the exact percentage? Not sure and I would love for ZOS to release their analytics on this because I am positive it would be favorable to me and my side of the argument but it's certainly a hell of a lot more than some individuals in this thread seem to be implying.

The players wanting this may not like Harrowstorms, but that would just reinforce my point. They are very hard content for most of us (really tough in a small group and impossible to solo - for a sizeable group of us). Yet they didn't hold the interest of those who want veteran content (according to posts here at least, and my own experience going by them in game) once they were farmed out

Why would the community who have been told to shut up and stay in our instanced veteran content since One Tamriel (six years ago) be in the overland in 2021-2022? They're most likely taking the advice of staying in their instanced content running vMA for the 5000th time or not playing the game period (as you can see in the Reddit thread discussing ESO's lack of difficulty above)... Because expecting them to fork out $40 for an expansion where you one-shot mobs for twenty hours is a hard sell even if you're really invested in the lore.

It may be, but how many will not pay it if they don't invest the significant amount of development work required to do this?

And the issue of "one-shotting mobs" has been shown to only be true for a limited subset. I would assume you really mean "easily kill" here, not literally a single shot, since many (likely most) of us cannot do that for all but things like deer. Even wolves in Summerset take me multiple shots on my main who is well outfitted.

I would also like to see you and others like you tell how whatever they do would keep you engaged for long. How long would it be until you had figured it out enough to be asking for even harder overland content? Keeping people happy with content is very hard for most MMOs, it would be even harder for this kind of content, especially since you would likely consume it even faster than normal, at least until you were tired of it.

How long this will be reasonable? Given ZOS' current yearly schedule forever. I didnt quest in 4 years other than the recent 2 weeks for this forum thread. I would come back so would many others, so thinks a whole guild of mine and many more players i discussed this topic with in recent yrears- besides that. >60% of ZOS content in chapters and DLCs is overland and its the content they make advertisement for. I think its a bit more urgent than certain other things
Btw for me its oneshot - i go into stealth for crit damage and oneshot up 65K health. Besides that i can kill 20 mobs in 4-6 secs and 50 mobs + 4 dangerous foes in around 20 secs as tested in rimmer necropolis 2 days ago where i pulled the whole dungeon it seems, without dropping below 70% health. Also i removed all my CP and ALL gear. Quest boss with 250K health was dead in 6 secs. with only weapons equipped - also no need to care about the boss mechanic with literally 0 armor rating.
I just say this to underline that player like me do exist. It is not just a rumor.

I am unclear how the last comment ties into what I said. I didn't deny your existence. I questioned how long you would be sufficient happy with the new difficulty to keep playing the game actively. I am betting you go through other content quite quickly, so why would this be different if that is the case?

Tornaad

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

This would be a lot of work for a very short play experience for a limited number of people. New content in any MMO is consumed at a fast rate already. Designing content (or updating it) for a smaller subset would take a lot of time to properly tune and then would likely only be interesting for a while, as Harrowstorms and such have shown.

I was hoping to see some notable exceptions to this in past questions I asked, but I did not. (Perhaps I missed them, but I find that unlikely.) Please tell me how this would not be true if you believe it would not.

How would the financial cost of all this work be offset by the benefits if this is true?

You're misrepresenting the argument by downplaying the number of people this affects as if it's a small handful of neckbeards that don't touch grass. The power creep problem is readily apparent in the open world and from what I've observed, CP300 is when players are basically one-shotting enemies in overland. The game is eight years old and there's been 15+ DLCs including five retail expansion packs. Even someone who only touches the game once a year when chapters release would be able to reach CP300. That's nothing, especially after CP2.0 essentially cut the XP needed in half.

That was not the intent of what I wrote. It would take a whole lot more than that minimal number of players to justify the costs involved. A LOT more. Please do not twist what I am saying. You are free to disagree, but I would expect anything they devote serious time to would be cost justified by its positive financial contribution, not just for a portion of the players.

How many players are in the category you note? 10-20% of the playerbase? More? Less? How much revenue do those players drive?

Remember to separate those who want harder overland content and those who will quit (or not start) if they do not get it. I am asserting it is relatively low, but it would only be worth all the work

I'm in four super casual guilds on PC-NA that allow me to log out for six months and still be in them so they allow varying levels of lengthy inactivity. In one guild that has players that haven't logged in up to 40 months, over a third of the 471 players we have are above CP300. The others that don't keep inactive members around for years, the overwhelming majority of players in them are above CP300. I look around the open world and out of 25 people completely at random prime time, 16 of them were above the level of CP300. I observe combat encounters outside the cities, the vast majority of mobs are killed in a blink of an eye.

A sizable portion of the playerbase is capable of steamrolling the overwhelming majority of content being sold to us every year. What's the exact percentage? Not sure and I would love for ZOS to release their analytics on this because I am positive it would be favorable to me and my side of the argument but it's certainly a hell of a lot more than some individuals in this thread seem to be implying.

The players wanting this may not like Harrowstorms, but that would just reinforce my point. They are very hard content for most of us (really tough in a small group and impossible to solo - for a sizeable group of us). Yet they didn't hold the interest of those who want veteran content (according to posts here at least, and my own experience going by them in game) once they were farmed out

Why would the community who have been told to shut up and stay in our instanced veteran content since One Tamriel (six years ago) be in the overland in 2021-2022? They're most likely taking the advice of staying in their instanced content running vMA for the 5000th time or not playing the game period (as you can see in the Reddit thread discussing ESO's lack of difficulty above)... Because expecting them to fork out $40 for an expansion where you one-shot mobs for twenty hours is a hard sell even if you're really invested in the lore.

It may be, but how many will not pay it if they don't invest the significant amount of development work required to do this?

And the issue of "one-shotting mobs" has been shown to only be true for a limited subset. I would assume you really mean "easily kill" here, not literally a single shot, since many (likely most) of us cannot do that for all but things like deer. Even wolves in Summerset take me multiple shots on my main who is well outfitted.

I would also like to see you and others like you tell how whatever they do would keep you engaged for long. How long would it be until you had figured it out enough to be asking for even harder overland content? Keeping people happy with content is very hard for most MMOs, it would be even harder for this kind of content, especially since you would likely consume it even faster than normal, at least until you were tired of it.

How long this will be reasonable? Given ZOS' current yearly schedule forever. I didnt quest in 4 years other than the recent 2 weeks for this forum thread. I would come back so would many others, so thinks a whole guild of mine and many more players i discussed this topic with in recent yrears- besides that. >60% of ZOS content in chapters and DLCs is overland and its the content they make advertisement for. I think its a bit more urgent than certain other things
Btw for me its oneshot - i go into stealth for crit damage and oneshot up 65K health. Besides that i can kill 20 mobs in 4-6 secs and 50 mobs + 4 dangerous foes in around 20 secs as tested in rimmer necropolis 2 days ago where i pulled the whole dungeon it seems, without dropping below 70% health. Also i removed all my CP and ALL gear. Quest boss with 250K health was dead in 6 secs. with only weapons equipped - also no need to care about the boss mechanic with literally 0 armor rating.
I just say this to underline that player like me do exist. It is not just a rumor.

I am unclear how the last comment ties into what I said. I didn't deny your existence. I questioned how long you would be sufficient happy with the new difficulty to keep playing the game actively. I am betting you go through other content quite quickly, so why would this be different if that is the case?

I just started a new character and (now that I understand the mechanics of the game a little better) even with that new character who does not have any Champion points assigned the overland will often times feel too easy. I am not an elite player. I am likely only an average player. If I am experiencing that, then there is a need for it. The question of how long would players be happy with it, is irrelevant and really the wrong question to ask. If the overland content was harder, then I could easily see myself going through character after character trying to get every single achievement, completing quest after quest over and over. As it stands, I have gone through it once, but to go back again, barely has any draw.

I have played through Skyrim dozens of times. Yes, there are many times when I will want to just play easy button, but there are also times when I will try to start a character off at level one with max difficulty and see how far I can go.

There is enough content in ESO, that if they gave me a better challenge, specifically how much of a challenge I face, then I could easily see myself purchasing extra character slots just to run through the campaign again possibly for decades to come. Right now, it is almost a drag trying to take the rest of my 6 characters through the campaign. To focus on the question of how long it will be of interest misses the point. There is enough here that without adding anything but the ability to change difficulty, they could have me hooked for life.

Lysette

Zuboko wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

This would be a lot of work for a very short play experience for a limited number of people. New content in any MMO is consumed at a fast rate already. Designing content (or updating it) for a smaller subset would take a lot of time to properly tune and then would likely only be interesting for a while, as Harrowstorms and such have shown.

I was hoping to see some notable exceptions to this in past questions I asked, but I did not. (Perhaps I missed them, but I find that unlikely.) Please tell me how this would not be true if you believe it would not.

How would the financial cost of all this work be offset by the benefits if this is true?

You're misrepresenting the argument by downplaying the number of people this affects as if it's a small handful of neckbeards that don't touch grass. The power creep problem is readily apparent in the open world and from what I've observed, CP300 is when players are basically one-shotting enemies in overland. The game is eight years old and there's been 15+ DLCs including five retail expansion packs. Even someone who only touches the game once a year when chapters release would be able to reach CP300. That's nothing, especially after CP2.0 essentially cut the XP needed in half.

That was not the intent of what I wrote. It would take a whole lot more than that minimal number of players to justify the costs involved. A LOT more. Please do not twist what I am saying. You are free to disagree, but I would expect anything they devote serious time to would be cost justified by its positive financial contribution, not just for a portion of the players.

How many players are in the category you note? 10-20% of the playerbase? More? Less? How much revenue do those players drive?

Remember to separate those who want harder overland content and those who will quit (or not start) if they do not get it. I am asserting it is relatively low, but it would only be worth all the work

I'm in four super casual guilds on PC-NA that allow me to log out for six months and still be in them so they allow varying levels of lengthy inactivity. In one guild that has players that haven't logged in up to 40 months, over a third of the 471 players we have are above CP300. The others that don't keep inactive members around for years, the overwhelming majority of players in them are above CP300. I look around the open world and out of 25 people completely at random prime time, 16 of them were above the level of CP300. I observe combat encounters outside the cities, the vast majority of mobs are killed in a blink of an eye.

A sizable portion of the playerbase is capable of steamrolling the overwhelming majority of content being sold to us every year. What's the exact percentage? Not sure and I would love for ZOS to release their analytics on this because I am positive it would be favorable to me and my side of the argument but it's certainly a hell of a lot more than some individuals in this thread seem to be implying.

The players wanting this may not like Harrowstorms, but that would just reinforce my point. They are very hard content for most of us (really tough in a small group and impossible to solo - for a sizeable group of us). Yet they didn't hold the interest of those who want veteran content (according to posts here at least, and my own experience going by them in game) once they were farmed out

Why would the community who have been told to shut up and stay in our instanced veteran content since One Tamriel (six years ago) be in the overland in 2021-2022? They're most likely taking the advice of staying in their instanced content running vMA for the 5000th time or not playing the game period (as you can see in the Reddit thread discussing ESO's lack of difficulty above)... Because expecting them to fork out $40 for an expansion where you one-shot mobs for twenty hours is a hard sell even if you're really invested in the lore.

It may be, but how many will not pay it if they don't invest the significant amount of development work required to do this?

And the issue of "one-shotting mobs" has been shown to only be true for a limited subset. I would assume you really mean "easily kill" here, not literally a single shot, since many (likely most) of us cannot do that for all but things like deer. Even wolves in Summerset take me multiple shots on my main who is well outfitted.

I would also like to see you and others like you tell how whatever they do would keep you engaged for long. How long would it be until you had figured it out enough to be asking for even harder overland content? Keeping people happy with content is very hard for most MMOs, it would be even harder for this kind of content, especially since you would likely consume it even faster than normal, at least until you were tired of it.

How long this will be reasonable? Given ZOS' current yearly schedule forever. I didnt quest in 4 years other than the recent 2 weeks for this forum thread. I would come back so would many others, so thinks a whole guild of mine and many more players i discussed this topic with in recent yrears- besides that. >60% of ZOS content in chapters and DLCs is overland and its the content they make advertisement for. I think its a bit more urgent than certain other things
Btw for me its oneshot - i go into stealth for crit damage and oneshot up 65K health. Besides that i can kill 20 mobs in 4-6 secs and 50 mobs + 4 dangerous foes in around 20 secs as tested in rimmer necropolis 2 days ago where i pulled the whole dungeon it seems, without dropping below 70% health. Also i removed all my CP and ALL gear. Quest boss with 250K health was dead in 6 secs. with only weapons equipped - also no need to care about the boss mechanic with literally 0 armor rating.
I just say this to underline that player like me do exist. It is not just a rumor.

I am unclear how the last comment ties into what I said. I didn't deny your existence. I questioned how long you would be sufficient happy with the new difficulty to keep playing the game actively. I am betting you go through other content quite quickly, so why would this be different if that is the case?

I just started a new character and (now that I understand the mechanics of the game a little better) even with that new character who does not have any Champion points assigned the overland will often times feel too easy. I am not an elite player. I am likely only an average player. If I am experiencing that, then there is a need for it. The question of how long would players be happy with it, is irrelevant and really the wrong question to ask. If the overland content was harder, then I could easily see myself going through character after character trying to get every single achievement, completing quest after quest over and over. As it stands, I have gone through it once, but to go back again, barely has any draw.

I have played through Skyrim dozens of times. Yes, there are many times when I will want to just play easy button, but there are also times when I will try to start a character off at level one with max difficulty and see how far I can go.

There is enough content in ESO, that if they gave me a better challenge, specifically how much of a challenge I face, then I could easily see myself purchasing extra character slots just to run through the campaign again possibly for decades to come. Right now, it is almost a drag trying to take the rest of my 6 characters through the campaign. To focus on the question of how long it will be of interest misses the point. There is enough here that without adding anything but the ability to change difficulty, they could have me hooked for life.

This is true, I have 16 characters and each of them had it easier - but this is nearly unavoidable - when you will start skyrim on hardest difficulty, you will learn armor and block skills a lot quicker, due to the incoming damage being higher for example, but your weapon skills will stay behind for a while longer, because your damage output is less - if you know about this, you will adapt to this and play a little with the giants to get your blocking up quickly and so on - you know as well which is the giant's leg to cling to, that he cannot hit you with his heavy attack and so on.

Each character has it easier, if you use the knowledge those before have acquired - my approach to it is to at least try to not use too much of the knowledge other characters of mine have acquired and let each character make his/her own experiences and base decisions on that - as in role playing them. But I do as well not always stick to this self-given rule - because some things and quests are required to do, and I rush through them then, to get it over with - it has no benefit to role play these mandatory quests over and over again.

NeeScrolls

Lysette wrote: »

Something I never really understood is - if ESO is originally meant to be something like "Oblivion/Skyrim with a friend", why content is not scaling to a group then - .

Yeah i suggested that same concept wayyyy back on page 61 , but as spartaxoxo replied: It's probably just too massive of a code re-write overhaul to accomplish it on each & every overland zone i dunno.

By the way, quick question i probably should've asked a while ago....

Does everyone consider 'overland' to also include things like: Harrowstorms, WB's , Random-Roaming Exec bosses (like in 'Deadlands' ) , Dolmens, Oblivion Portals, etc. etc. ? And how about those Group Area red-fountain activator things in 'Craglorn' ? Or is Craglorn sorta considered to be like it's own special separate overland type?

Because if those ARE included , then it certainly makes it seem like Zenimax has indeed been trying (albeit subtly) to sprinkle in more & more challenges to discover amidst all the easy trash-grind-mobs.

Sylvermynx

NeeScrolls wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Something I never really understood is - if ESO is originally meant to be something like "Oblivion/Skyrim with a friend", why content is not scaling to a group then - .

Yeah i suggested that same concept wayyyy back on page 61 , but as spartaxoxo replied: It's probably just too massive of a code re-write overhaul to accomplish it on each & every overland zone i dunno.

By the way, quick question i probably should've asked a while ago....

Does everyone consider 'overland' to also include things like: Harrowstorms, WB's , Random-Roaming Exec bosses (like in 'Deadlands' ) , Dolmens, Oblivion Portals, etc. etc. ? And how about those Group Area red-fountain activator things in 'Craglorn' ? Or is Craglorn sorta considered to be like it's own special separate overland type?

Because if those ARE included , then it certainly makes it seem like Zenimax has indeed been trying (albeit subtly) to sprinkle in more & more challenges to discover amidst all the easy trash-grind-mobs.

I don't do anything with any of those outside the occasional dolmen with enough people so I don't die over and over, ditto the occasional WB (I've probably only ever got in on about one WB a year) and the only wandering boss I saw in The Deadlands got dragged over me by a small group while I was mining, and I died immediately. The Deadlands is way out of my ability comfort zone....

spartaxoxo

NeeScrolls wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Something I never really understood is - if ESO is originally meant to be something like "Oblivion/Skyrim with a friend", why content is not scaling to a group then - .

Yeah i suggested that same concept wayyyy back on page 61 , but as spartaxoxo replied: It's probably just too massive of a code re-write overhaul to accomplish it on each & every overland zone i dunno.

By the way, quick question i probably should've asked a while ago....

Does everyone consider 'overland' to also include things like: Harrowstorms, WB's , Random-Roaming Exec bosses (like in 'Deadlands' ) , Dolmens, Oblivion Portals, etc. etc. ? And how about those Group Area red-fountain activator things in 'Craglorn' ? Or is Craglorn sorta considered to be like it's own special separate overland type?

Because if those ARE included , then it certainly makes it seem like Zenimax has indeed been trying (albeit subtly) to sprinkle in more & more challenges to discover amidst all the easy trash-grind-mobs.

Yes, those are also Overland content. And yes Zenimax has been trying to sprinkle in more challenge

SilverBride

Zuboko wrote: »

I just started a new character and (now that I understand the mechanics of the game a little better) even with that new character who does not have any Champion points assigned the overland will often times feel too easy.

Too easy for what? Overland trash and quest mobs in general should be easy, especially for an experienced player. It doesn't make sense that every mob would be a challenge. That is what quest bosses are for, and World Bosses and Harrowstorms. Then there are also Delve Bosses and Public Dungeon Bosses and dangerous mobs such as River Trolls and Giants and Mammoths, and others of this type of mob that are stronger than the normal mobs. There is already a lot of challenge in overland. Every little thing does not need to be a challenge and it doesn't make sense that they would be.

Zuboko wrote: »

The question of how long would players be happy with it, is irrelevant and really the wrong question to ask.

That is a very valid concern. Several players have stated that they aren't questing in overland but they would if it was more difficult. Others have stated they aren't playing the game at all but they would return if it was more difficult. If they were to return how do we know the new difficulty would be enough for them to stick around?

What about those of us who are currently playing and questing and are happy with overland just as it is? Why risk losing these players on the chance that some others may or may not return and may or may not stick around if they do?

ShalidorsHeir

SilverBride wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

I just started a new character and (now that I understand the mechanics of the game a little better) even with that new character who does not have any Champion points assigned the overland will often times feel too easy.

Too easy for what? Overland trash and quest mobs in general should be easy, especially for an experienced player. It doesn't make sense that every mob would be a challenge. That is what quest bosses are for, and World Bosses and Harrowstorms. Then there are also Delve Bosses and Public Dungeon Bosses and dangerous mobs such as River Trolls and Giants and Mammoths, and others of this type of mob that are stronger than the normal mobs. There is already a lot of challenge in overlan. Every little thing does not need to be a challenge and it doesn't make sense that they would be.

Zuboko wrote: »

The question of how long would players be happy with it, is irrelevant and really the wrong question to ask.

That is a very valid concern. Several players have stated that they aren't questing in overland but they would if it was more difficult. Others have stated they aren't playing the game at all but they would return if it was more difficult. If they were to return how do we know the new difficulty would be enough for them to stick around?

What about those of us who are currently playing and questing and are happy with overland just as it is? Why risk losing these players on the chance that some others may or may not return and may or may not stick around if they do?

"Optional" is the term that you are missing in your last sentence. Nobody wants to remove the fun content for you. I also still think it is the wrong question. Would be it reasonable to inlcude more players to over land again is the question as far as i understood it. My answer to that was: yes. It is ESO's main content. Most effort is going into overland content given ZOS' yearly dlc/chapter schedule. It should appeal to everyone. But again: the answer to these questions is for ZOS to decide. We should just provide our opinions in this thread so ZOS can generate some feedback out of that.

SilverBride

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

"Optional" is the term that you are missing in your last sentence. Nobody wants to remove the fun content for you. I also still think it is the wrong question. Would be it reasonable to inlcude more players to over land again is the question as far as i understood it. My answer to that was: yes. It is ESO's main content. Most effort is going into overland content given ZOS' yearly dlc/chapter schedule. It should appeal to everyone. But again: the answer to these questions is for ZOS to decide. We should just provide our opinions in this thread so ZOS can generate some feedback out of that.

Optional doesn't make it any better. In fact that creates a whole set of problems such as dividing the playerbase for one.

And how many would be happy with veteran overland if the rewards were the same as normal? This creates a situation where players who also want the better rewards but may never be strong enough for veteran overland would just miss out. This would only serve to create conflict among the playerbase.

As far as appealing to everyone, that is an impossible task because we all have different ideas of what is fun. The best they can do is appeal to their wider audience which they do very well.

This is my opinion and my feedback.

ShalidorsHeir

SilverBride wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

"Optional" is the term that you are missing in your last sentence. Nobody wants to remove the fun content for you. I also still think it is the wrong question. Would be it reasonable to inlcude more players to over land again is the question as far as i understood it. My answer to that was: yes. It is ESO's main content. Most effort is going into overland content given ZOS' yearly dlc/chapter schedule. It should appeal to everyone. But again: the answer to these questions is for ZOS to decide. We should just provide our opinions in this thread so ZOS can generate some feedback out of that.

Optional doesn't make it any better. In fact that creates a whole set of problems such as dividing the playerbase for one.

And how many would be happy with veteran overland if the rewards were the same as normal? This creates a situation where players who also want the better rewards but may never be strong enough for veteran overland would just miss out. This would only serve to create conflict among the playerbase.

As far as appealing to everyone, that is an impossible task because we all have different ideas of what is fun. The best they can do is appeal to their wider audience which they do very well.

This is my opinion and my feedback.

I see your point, no worries. But i dont see anything being divided that is not already. More players joining overland makes this argument less decontructive i guess. Comunity is already divided as you can see in this thread here and then when it comes to overland content / difficulty and that is okay. So far it simply results in less players joining overland than potentially would. So far the separation starts with a huge part of the playerbase which plays competetive and is therefore not there in overland. And even in the current overland there are conflicts. E.g. Some participants in this thread would pay for a private instances Separation doesnt seem to be a problem to them. Others find it to easy -> These conflicts are basically the reason why we are arguing here
And technically we already have separation in overland content in shape of multiple instances per zone. the number scales depending of players around. You have for example 5 instances. Now take 3 and label them as normal and 2 as veteran (or 4-1 depending on how many players will actually join which one) and you already have done some job without any serious costs and a playground to gather statistics for future updates. (Yes i am a software dev myself, methods like these are common to determine the value of improvements). As far as rewards can go: same reward but maybe a ways more like money or XP, or higher quality (purple instead of blue set item) of items would already do the job im sure. To me rewards dont even matter.

ShalidorsHeir

Dont get me wrong please. I just dont agree to this "NO" without any knowlegde base for that. I would like to see that this was given a try. I dont expect overland to fundamentaly change for my own sake. I simply would like to see a first step. And the goal should be to address more players than it does right now. Yes, ZOS had numbers for players staying around in overland because they have to be there to do crafting dailies, trading, throwing mudballs at people at the outfit station . and whatnot. Just there daily business and where should they be for that? in Cyrodiil? in a dungeon? That does not really prove anything here. And these players are not playing the content we are actually talking about. And these number were gathered when the game was much older than now with far less functionality and also a smaller playerbase. (Referring to the one tamriel patch, in particular to the craglorn content that rich was commenting)

spartaxoxo

Most of those players are doing story content and it's the most used content in the game

SilverBride

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

"Optional" is the term that you are missing in your last sentence. Nobody wants to remove the fun content for you. I also still think it is the wrong question. Would be it reasonable to inlcude more players to over land again is the question as far as i understood it. My answer to that was: yes. It is ESO's main content. Most effort is going into overland content given ZOS' yearly dlc/chapter schedule. It should appeal to everyone. But again: the answer to these questions is for ZOS to decide. We should just provide our opinions in this thread so ZOS can generate some feedback out of that.

Optional doesn't make it any better. In fact that creates a whole set of problems such as dividing the playerbase for one.

And how many would be happy with veteran overland if the rewards were the same as normal? This creates a situation where players who also want the better rewards but may never be strong enough for veteran overland would just miss out. This would only serve to create conflict among the playerbase.

As far as appealing to everyone, that is an impossible task because we all have different ideas of what is fun. The best they can do is appeal to their wider audience which they do very well.

This is my opinion and my feedback.

I see your point, no worries. But i dont see anything being divided that is not already. More players joining overland makes this argument less decontructive i guess. Comunity is already divided as you can see in this thread here and then when it comes to overland content / difficulty and that is okay. So far it simply results in less players joining overland than potentially would. So far the separation starts with a huge part of the playerbase which plays competetive and is therefore not there in overland. And even in the current overland there are conflicts. E.g. Some participants in this thread would pay for a private instances Separation doesnt seem to be a problem to them. Others find it to easy -> These conflicts are basically the reason why we are arguing here
And technically we already have separation in overland content in shape of multiple instances per zone. the number scales depending of players around. You have for example 5 instances. Now take 3 and label them as normal and 2 as veteran (or 4-1 depending on how many players will actually join which one) and you already have done some job without any serious costs and a playground to gather statistics for future updates. (Yes i am a software dev myself, methods like these are common to determine the value of improvements). As far as rewards can go: same reward but maybe a ways more like money or XP, or higher quality (purple instead of blue set item) of items would already do the job im sure. To me rewards dont even matter.

Overland would be separated into 2 different worlds, normal and veteran. Players would be in one or the other. It is not the same as the identical instances of the megaserver because the mobs would be completely different difficulties in each. Since overland is a large portion of the game and where most of the questing takes place it would divide the playerbase.

I am aware that one or two players prefer individual instances, but they want this not for more challenging fights but just to have the world to themselves.

The only reasonable solutions in my opinion are debuffs in the form of a toggle or foods or alchemy potions and challenge banners. These give the player increased challenge without negatively affecting anyone else, or the game in general.

Parasaurolophus

SilverBride wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

"Optional" is the term that you are missing in your last sentence. Nobody wants to remove the fun content for you. I also still think it is the wrong question. Would be it reasonable to inlcude more players to over land again is the question as far as i understood it. My answer to that was: yes. It is ESO's main content. Most effort is going into overland content given ZOS' yearly dlc/chapter schedule. It should appeal to everyone. But again: the answer to these questions is for ZOS to decide. We should just provide our opinions in this thread so ZOS can generate some feedback out of that.

Optional doesn't make it any better. In fact that creates a whole set of problems such as dividing the playerbase for one.

And how many would be happy with veteran overland if the rewards were the same as normal? This creates a situation where players who also want the better rewards but may never be strong enough for veteran overland would just miss out. This would only serve to create conflict among the playerbase.

As far as appealing to everyone, that is an impossible task because we all have different ideas of what is fun. The best they can do is appeal to their wider audience which they do very well.

This is my opinion and my feedback.

I see your point, no worries. But i dont see anything being divided that is not already. More players joining overland makes this argument less decontructive i guess. Comunity is already divided as you can see in this thread here and then when it comes to overland content / difficulty and that is okay. So far it simply results in less players joining overland than potentially would. So far the separation starts with a huge part of the playerbase which plays competetive and is therefore not there in overland. And even in the current overland there are conflicts. E.g. Some participants in this thread would pay for a private instances Separation doesnt seem to be a problem to them. Others find it to easy -> These conflicts are basically the reason why we are arguing here
And technically we already have separation in overland content in shape of multiple instances per zone. the number scales depending of players around. You have for example 5 instances. Now take 3 and label them as normal and 2 as veteran (or 4-1 depending on how many players will actually join which one) and you already have done some job without any serious costs and a playground to gather statistics for future updates. (Yes i am a software dev myself, methods like these are common to determine the value of improvements). As far as rewards can go: same reward but maybe a ways more like money or XP, or higher quality (purple instead of blue set item) of items would already do the job im sure. To me rewards dont even matter.

Overland would be separated into 2 different worlds, normal and veteran. Players would be in one or the other. It is not the same as the identical instances of the megaserver because the mobs would be completely different difficulties in each. Since overland is a large portion of the game and where most of the questing takes place it would divide the playerbase.

I am aware that one or two players prefer individual instances, but they want this not for more challenging fights but just to have the world to themselves.

The only reasonable solutions in my opinion are debuffs in the form of a toggle or foods or alchemy potions and challenge banners. These give the player increased challenge without negatively affecting anyone else, or the game in general.

This has been talked about so many times already:
1) Locations can accommodate a limited number of players. And it's not thousands as it seems to some. It doesn't seem to be more than a couple of hundred. So, each location, when there are many players in it, is divided into many instances.

2) Vet. players either complete the overland very quickly or not play it at all.

3) Overland does not have situations at all that would force players to unite. Yes, there are world bosses, anchors, but the whole overland is not limited to world bosses. Overland and questing is 99% solo. One of the constant points of criticism of eso is that it is anti-social. Other players seem to only interfere and do not participate in your game at all.

ShalidorsHeir

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

"Optional" is the term that you are missing in your last sentence. Nobody wants to remove the fun content for you. I also still think it is the wrong question. Would be it reasonable to inlcude more players to over land again is the question as far as i understood it. My answer to that was: yes. It is ESO's main content. Most effort is going into overland content given ZOS' yearly dlc/chapter schedule. It should appeal to everyone. But again: the answer to these questions is for ZOS to decide. We should just provide our opinions in this thread so ZOS can generate some feedback out of that.

Optional doesn't make it any better. In fact that creates a whole set of problems such as dividing the playerbase for one.

And how many would be happy with veteran overland if the rewards were the same as normal? This creates a situation where players who also want the better rewards but may never be strong enough for veteran overland would just miss out. This would only serve to create conflict among the playerbase.

As far as appealing to everyone, that is an impossible task because we all have different ideas of what is fun. The best they can do is appeal to their wider audience which they do very well.

This is my opinion and my feedback.

I see your point, no worries. But i dont see anything being divided that is not already. More players joining overland makes this argument less decontructive i guess. Comunity is already divided as you can see in this thread here and then when it comes to overland content / difficulty and that is okay. So far it simply results in less players joining overland than potentially would. So far the separation starts with a huge part of the playerbase which plays competetive and is therefore not there in overland. And even in the current overland there are conflicts. E.g. Some participants in this thread would pay for a private instances Separation doesnt seem to be a problem to them. Others find it to easy -> These conflicts are basically the reason why we are arguing here
And technically we already have separation in overland content in shape of multiple instances per zone. the number scales depending of players around. You have for example 5 instances. Now take 3 and label them as normal and 2 as veteran (or 4-1 depending on how many players will actually join which one) and you already have done some job without any serious costs and a playground to gather statistics for future updates. (Yes i am a software dev myself, methods like these are common to determine the value of improvements). As far as rewards can go: same reward but maybe a ways more like money or XP, or higher quality (purple instead of blue set item) of items would already do the job im sure. To me rewards dont even matter.

Overland would be separated into 2 different worlds, normal and veteran. Players would be in one or the other. It is not the same as the identical instances of the megaserver because the mobs would be completely different difficulties in each. Since overland is a large portion of the game and where most of the questing takes place it would divide the playerbase.

I am aware that one or two players prefer individual instances, but they want this not for more challenging fights but just to have the world to themselves.

The only reasonable solutions in my opinion are debuffs in the form of a toggle or foods or alchemy potions and challenge banners. These give the player increased challenge without negatively affecting anyone else, or the game in general.

This has been talked about so many times already:
1) Locations can accommodate a limited number of players. And it's not thousands as it seems to some. It doesn't seem to be more than a couple of hundred. So, each location, when there are many players in it, is divided into many instances.

2) Vet. players either complete the overland very quickly or not play it at all.

3) Overland does not have situations at all that would force players to unite. Yes, there are world bosses, anchors, but the whole overland is not limited to world bosses. Overland and questing is 99% solo. One of the constant points of criticism of eso is that it is anti-social. Other players seem to only interfere and do not participate in your game at all.

Exactly, thank you and amen. That has always been the point.

SilverBride

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

This has been talked about so many times already:
1) Locations can accommodate a limited number of players. And it's not thousands as it seems to some. It doesn't seem to be more than a couple of hundred. So, each location, when there are many players in it, is divided into many instances.

The multiple identical instances of the megaserver that accommodate the number of players who are logged in at any given time is not the same thing as a completely separate veteran overland with different difficulty. This would be a completely separate world divided into its own instances, if there is enough population to require additional instances.

"Parasaurolophus wrote: »

2) Vet. players either complete the overland very quickly or not play it at all.

This is true of all players, not just veterans, and would be the same in a veteran overland as it is now. Some players don't like to quest, but rather prefer to zerg their way up, which is evident in Alik'r and Craglorn. And to clarify, I am a veteran player, I'm just not an end game player.

"Parasaurolophus wrote: »

3) Overland does not have situations at all that would force players to unite. Yes, there are world bosses, anchors, but the whole overland is not limited to world bosses. Overland and questing is 99% solo. One of the constant points of criticism of eso is that it is anti-social. Other players seem to only interfere and do not participate in your game at all.

Dividing the world even more is just going to make ESO more anti-social.

ShalidorsHeir

The anti-social apsect comes mainly from people who think they are part of a "self-claimed majority" which is their way to create an artificial unreal argument simply to say: "i am right because most people do it like i do" ... Creating the illusion that someone else must be wrong as part of a minority which can be ignored for the sake of the bigger picture.

I see your point and can understand your assumption. I just do not agree to your conclusion. As far as my expierence reaches i am 100% sure things wont go this way. But i am also sure that we should leave these tries to convince each other since other people want to share their opinion as well and we are just polluting this thread.

Parasaurolophus

SilverBride wrote: »

The multiple identical instances of the megaserver that accommodate the number of players who are logged in at any given time is not the same thing as a completely separate veteran overland with different difficulty. This would be a completely separate world divided into its own instances, if there is enough population to require additional instances.

Yes... And what the wrong?

SilverBride wrote: »

This is true of all players, not just veterans, and would be the same in a veteran overland as it is now. Some players don't like to quest, but rather prefer to zerg their way up, which is evident in Alik'r and Craglorn. And to clarify, I am a veteran player, I'm just not an end game player.

But it would bring much more excitement and enjoyment with each new chapter or dlc, doesn't that matter? In addition, I personally said that the overland experience as a whole is very poor and needs to be improved by adding not only difficulties, but also some new interesting activities.
And honestly, I didn't see any players zerging the quests in Alikr. They just farm experience at anchors.

SilverBride wrote: »

How is dividing the world even more going to make ESO more social?

No way. Does anyone here talk about it?

I don't want to argue with anyone here anymore. After all, it was because of this that past threads were closed, which were drowning in disputes. I like how this thread was at the beginning, when a lot of people wrote big posts about their experiences. Now we are again entering the next circle of the same disputes.

SilverBride

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

The anti-social apsect comes mainly from people who think they are part of a "self-claimed majority" which is their way to create an artificial unreal argument simply to say: "i am right because most people do it like i do" ... Creating the illusion that someone else must be wrong as part of a minority which can be ignored for the sake of the bigger picture.

I see your point and can understand your assumption. I just do not agree to your conclusion. As far as my expierence reaches i am 100% sure things wont go this way. But i am also sure that we should leave these tries to convince each other since other people want to share their opinion as well and we are just polluting this thread.

You don't have to agree with me, and I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am just giving my feedback with my rationale for why I feel the way I do.

AlexanderDeLarge

CP5 wrote: »

ZOS loves their year-long stories, but when I know going into the year, after the Q1 reveal what the plot is, all I'm thinking in the back of my mind is "why don't these people just give me the big bad's home address, so I can kick his teeth in now and get it over with?" Every quest with the friendly npcs going on about the end of the world in what not becomes so disingenuous when I know the threat isn't serious.

This is phrased perfectly and summarizes my frustration with TESO's overland as of today. Entire quest chains are just busywork meanwhile the quest givers are really building the baddies up. Fast forward an hour, you're off to kill mr. super intimidating daedric cultist or whatever and you kill him in two or three hits before he can even get through his voiced lines.

The chapters are the same format except instead of an hour of busywork, it's like twenty hours. It sucks.

ShalidorsHeir

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

ZOS loves their year-long stories, but when I know going into the year, after the Q1 reveal what the plot is, all I'm thinking in the back of my mind is "why don't these people just give me the big bad's home address, so I can kick his teeth in now and get it over with?" Every quest with the friendly npcs going on about the end of the world in what not becomes so disingenuous when I know the threat isn't serious.

This is phrased perfectly and summarizes my frustration with TESO's overland as of today. Entire quest chains are just busywork meanwhile the quest givers are really building the baddies up. Fast forward an hour, you're off to kill mr. super intimidating daedric cultist or whatever and you kill him in two or three hits before he can even get through his voiced lines.

The chapters are the same format except instead of an hour of busywork, it's like twenty hours. It sucks.

You adjusted your footer for this, right? I would subscribe this :P

SilverBride

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

...you're off to kill mr. super intimidating daedric cultist or whatever and you kill him in two or three hits before he can even get through his voiced lines.

I would love to see a video of someone killing the main quest boss in 2 or 3 hits if anyone would like to share. I can't come close to that and I'd like to see how they are doing it.

ShalidorsHeir

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

...you're off to kill mr. super intimidating daedric cultist or whatever and you kill him in two or three hits before he can even get through his voiced lines.

I would love to see a video of someone killing the main quest boss in 2 or 3 hits if anyone would like to share. I can't come close to that and I'd like to see how they are doing it.

I did it almost naked and without CP ... in my recent tests to validate what i am writting here.

SilverBride

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

...you're off to kill mr. super intimidating daedric cultist or whatever and you kill him in two or three hits before he can even get through his voiced lines.

I would love to see a video of someone killing the main quest boss in 2 or 3 hits if anyone would like to share. I can't come close to that and I'd like to see how they are doing it.

I did it almost naked and without CP ... in my recent tests to validate what i am writting here.

Please share.

ShalidorsHeir

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

...you're off to kill mr. super intimidating daedric cultist or whatever and you kill him in two or three hits before he can even get through his voiced lines.

I would love to see a video of someone killing the main quest boss in 2 or 3 hits if anyone would like to share. I can't come close to that and I'd like to see how they are doing it.

I did it almost naked and without CP ... in my recent tests to validate what i am writting here.

in combat metrics it looked like crystal weapon pre cast into dizzing swing +LA out of stealth for crit damage hitting for 125K health, the boss 250K so i added 2 times executioner from 2h. done. I have no idea how you guys would record that. im not a youtuber Next time i add a combat metrics screenshot as well. Total fight time was like 2 secs, 3 secs if you include the pre casts. But the setup was made for RP with some proc conditions. so if you add plain stats only you go further than this.

SilverBride

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

...you're off to kill mr. super intimidating daedric cultist or whatever and you kill him in two or three hits before he can even get through his voiced lines.

I would love to see a video of someone killing the main quest boss in 2 or 3 hits if anyone would like to share. I can't come close to that and I'd like to see how they are doing it.

I did it almost naked and without CP ... in my recent tests to validate what i am writting here.

in combat metrics it looked like crystal weapon pre cast into dizzing swing +LA out of stealth for crit damage hitting for 125K health, the boss 250K so i added 2 times executioner from 2h. done. I have no idea how you guys would record that. im not a youtuber Next time i add a combat metrics screenshot as well

Thanks for the rundown.

This would be a good reason to use a challenge banner.

ShalidorsHeir

SilverBride wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

...you're off to kill mr. super intimidating daedric cultist or whatever and you kill him in two or three hits before he can even get through his voiced lines.

I would love to see a video of someone killing the main quest boss in 2 or 3 hits if anyone would like to share. I can't come close to that and I'd like to see how they are doing it.

I did it almost naked and without CP ... in my recent tests to validate what i am writting here.

in combat metrics it looked like crystal weapon pre cast into dizzing swing +LA out of stealth for crit damage hitting for 125K health, the boss 250K so i added 2 times executioner from 2h. done. I have no idea how you guys would record that. im not a youtuber Next time i add a combat metrics screenshot as well

Well thanks for the rundown.

This would be a good reason to use a challenge banner.

I reset the quest and did it again without gear and CP .... stop playing this card pls 6 secs was the result. I already wrote those test result down in here somewhere

Edit: this becomes even more interesting when you play out aoe dots and whirling blades --> you can kill like 1 enemie per second in statistic numbers. The more mobs you stack the faster it becomes. This way i just grinded Mirri Elendis (companion) to lv 20 with almost any skill max level as well in just 5 hours rampaging through rimmen necropolis.
Another fun fact is that usual quest bosses seem to have only 135K health + i had 0 armor rating and there was no need to avoid any of his attacks. Also, i can can outheal 20 secs of incomging damage with just 1 click. But usualy mobs and bosses dont even live ling enough to make use of this ability

Vevvev

Kinda wish the NPCs fought with more agency. Don't even need more damage or more health just... actually fought? The newer attack patterns ZOS has added over the years have been a lot of fun to go up against, but they are not frequent or accurate enough to really give me any cause for concern. It's like after every attack they don't do any kind of follow up as they pause before doing something else, and the kinds of attacks where they run away before doing something feels like a waste of time.

It'd be nice if the NPC was to move away to cast something they did something like shade/teleport away to that distance before the knife throw to make it more responsive. Also kinda reduce the internal cooldown inbetween NPC attacks so they are more responsive and come off as more of a threat without having to give them stat buff to achieve that.

FlopsyPrince

Lysette wrote: »

Yeah and it is quite normal to just let bugs in the game, if they do not effect a lot of people or are just rarely happening - take windows with it's roughly 250,000 unfixed bugs - it works most of the time, and fixing those, might introduce new bugs. In average development and bug fixing stops when it is "good enough" by that very reason.

Not exactly true BTW. It depends on the level of the flaw. Cosmetic issues may stay for a long time, but functional ones usually get squashed very quickly. Microsoft is not a good example however, for a great many reaosns.

I have faced Fed audits for systems I have worked with in the banking area in the past and they would not accept ignoring serious bugs, because of the field they cover.

MMOs are clearly not held to that high of a standard, nor is there really serious competition where fixing bugs would matter, so they do not get the attention many deserve now. Though they usually get fixed very quickly if they benefit the player, and that is true of almost any MMO.

This all ties back to harder overland because the same principles ap

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

...you're off to kill mr. super intimidating daedric cultist or whatever and you kill him in two or three hits before he can even get through his voiced lines.

I would love to see a video of someone killing the main quest boss in 2 or 3 hits if anyone would like to share. I can't come close to that and I'd like to see how they are doing it.

I did it almost naked and without CP ... in my recent tests to validate what i am writting here.

in combat metrics it looked like crystal weapon pre cast into dizzing swing +LA out of stealth for crit damage hitting for 125K health, the boss 250K so i added 2 times executioner from 2h. done. I have no idea how you guys would record that. im not a youtuber Next time i add a combat metrics screenshot as well

Well thanks for the rundown.

This would be a good reason to use a challenge banner.

I reset the quest and did it again without gear and CP .... stop playing this card pls 6 secs was the result. I already wrote those test result down in here somewhere

Edit: this becomes even more interesting when you play out aoe dots and whirling blades --> you can kill like 1 enemie per second in statistic numbers. The more mobs you stack the faster it becomes. This way i just grinded Mirri Elendis (companion) to lv 20 with almost any skill max level as well in just 5 hours rampaging through rimmen necropolis

It would be pretty certain you are not the normal player, nor possibly even as low as the top 10% of players.

I am not sure why I quest so much (though I am on the crafting and skillpoint grind now on the PC which is a pain) but I do quests repeatedly. I have noticed the bosses go down quickly most times, but so what? I still enjoy my time playing and it is more likely that I am representative of the player base than those who disliked this.

I am not sure how you would completely figure out how many players are in which areas though. That data would be vital to really determine the value of a major change like this, however it is implemented. It would take a significant amount of time to do and thus numbers are important.

Lets say they have 100 players. Is it 1-5 players that really want this, even to the point of not playing if it is not here. It is not likely worth the effort for that "small" of a group. On the other hand, it would be worth it if it was 40-50 of those 100 players. I don't see it being anywhere close to the latter however and expect it would be at 10 out of 100 tops. That is of course my guess.

How long did it take for those who value hard content to get bored with the separate zone (the name escapes me now) where you work through a fire zone to reach the end boss and lots of adds. I am sure some of you can solo this in your sleep, but I can only handle it if other players are around, even with my top character (A pet sorc). Thus the content has little value for me outside of an event and doesn't seem to keep other players engaged because I rarely find someone else in them when I am gathering mats near on access point in Blackwood.

That led to my question of how many would stay engaged long. It does seem the one reply to my past question on that would show at least one player would quest more, but I believe he mentioned only a single new character, not a stable of alts like some of us. Most challenge-focused players would likely not see it as compelling for long, even if they did complete all layers of Caldwell's lines.

CP5

Ok @SilverBride, I understand you probably don't like it when I address you directly, but both yourself and other users seem confused about how instancing works and are worried about subdividing the community. Putting aside the fact that many of the players this change would impact don't even log in all that often, sort of like what happened to you pre-One Tamriel, here is how the system currently works.

Imagine you owned a place that had swimming pools. You have this magic hallway where you can open more pools over time to meet the demands of the number of people arriving. To keep things sane, you only allow, say, to keep the math simple, each pool can only fit 10 people max, but you only ever let them fill to say, 7 people before opening a new pool. This is done so if someone wants to join someone whose already in a pool they can without it becoming over crowded.

Lets say you have 40 people, you would have 5 pools with 7 people and a 6th with only 5. You could, if you wanted the numbers to be more even, have 4 with 7 and 2 with 6, and each group would have a comfortable number of people with room for people to join those who they wanted to be with directly.

Now, if all the pools were shallow and someone wanted a deeper pool to swim, not to worry, you have the ability to change the depth of the pools as need and let's say you change only one of them to accommodate those who want to swim. If only one person wanted this, you would have 1 pool with 1 person, and the rest would be 4 pools with 8 and one with 7. The people who aren't interested in swimming in the deeper pool have slightly more people but still aren't near cap, and those who are interested get to enjoy what they want.

Tweak this ratio as much as you like, but you wouldn't need to open any additional pools to accommodate the 40 people, and outside of extremes like the mentioned "only 1 person" example, and all of them maintain a comfortable number of people.

However, this number, 40 people, would likely rise as people who want to swim in a deeper pool catch wind that you've offered this and as you get more people you open more pools.

This is exactly how it works with zone instances. Divide players into sane numbers so zone chat doesn't become a blur and peoples computers don't fry while entering town, create new instances as the total population needs, and you can organize which instance people are in to curate their individual taste in exactly the same way you would curate players between zones. You, don't take issue with zos adding more zones, do you? Yet they divide players depended on what people want to do, same as this instancing system already does.

It is a good thing you enjoy the game as much as you do. MMO's live or die depending on the population they can maintain, and no one in the right mind would want to change that. But just because you enjoy it as is doesn't invalidate others, and just because you feel the way it is fine doesn't change the fact that every other piece of content in the game has options on how you would want to engage with it. Giving the option gives more players the ability to enjoy the game, and as you've said many times fun is subjective, so please don't assume that your own enjoyment invalidates other players concerns. I've spent thousands of hours in this game because I love it and want to see it succeed, and adding an option, even one you personally wouldn't use, would enable more people to keep enjoying it.