Merge the servers to stop the games player population dying

Freilauftomate

I don't think the op was just talking about Cyrodiil.

I wrote: "when customers experience something (like Xbox EU and Playstation EU with player numbers in Cyrodiil) it would be nice if people would listen"... because i know how they still suffer from special treatment from a few months ago. IIRC Xbox EU was the very last platform to get the new server hardware, and Gray Host on Playstation EU was broken for half a year.

It matters on which platform you are playing, because they all have different problems. So it doesn't help when PC NA players come here to talk down every problem we have.

Four_Fingers

Which is why the EU problems need fixed, not just moved.
This should be about fixing problems with the game not about players getting aggravated with each other.
That said, I will try to play on my EU accounts more.

Freilauftomate

@Tyrant_Tim it's fine, i am used to this. Please don't risk your account by talking about this. We all know what's going on here.

alternatelder

Freilauftomate wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

...many old veteran players who are literally just endgaming rn are wishing for a merge, to bring life back into the game

Where is the data to support this?

Yeah, some scientists should do a couple of "randomized controlled trials" for the next 10 years, to see what would have been the best solution to revitalize the game... /s

Or we could try to listen to people who have been playing this game for a long time, and know a lot of bored and frustrated long-term customers (or now mostly ex-customers).

It will be interesting to see how many of all the new accounts will stay in the game long enough to reach endgame... [snip]

Merging the servers would not help the game for very long, without fixing the game. So i am not sure if this would be the best use of the scarce resources this company is willing to invest back into ESO.

[edited for baiting]

Most, if not all, of the people who are bored, or claim the game is dead are people who strictly pvp, or are interested only in endgame content like trials and leaderboards. Go to any game forum and it's the same thing. Pvpers mad at lack of content and endgamers wanting harder content because the rest of the game is boring/dead. But that game's population is healthy, many people playing everywhere.

Tyrant_Tim

Freilauftomate wrote: »

@Tyrant_Tim it's fine, i am used to this. Please don't risk your account by talking about this. We all know what's going on here.

How is it so hard for people to understand that everyone who visits these forums do in fact want the game to succeed.

Although each of us have different definitions of what success is, we shouldn’t be shooting at each other for expressing a problem.

Freilauftomate

alternatelder wrote: »

Freilauftomate wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

...many old veteran players who are literally just endgaming rn are wishing for a merge, to bring life back into the game

Where is the data to support this?

Yeah, some scientists should do a couple of "randomized controlled trials" for the next 10 years, to see what would have been the best solution to revitalize the game... /s

Or we could try to listen to people who have been playing this game for a long time, and know a lot of bored and frustrated long-term customers (or now mostly ex-customers).

It will be interesting to see how many of all the new accounts will stay in the game long enough to reach endgame... [snip]

Merging the servers would not help the game for very long, without fixing the game. So i am not sure if this would be the best use of the scarce resources this company is willing to invest back into ESO.

[edited for baiting]

Most, if not all, of the people who are bored, or claim the game is dead are people who strictly pvp, or are interested only in endgame content like trials and leaderboards. Go to any game forum and it's the same thing. Pvpers mad at lack of content and endgamers wanting harder content because the rest of the game is boring/dead. But that game's population is healthy, many people playing everywhere.

Where is the data to support this?

I AM JOKING, PLEASE DON'T KILL ME!

I really would like to talk about this, but since important parts of my posts get deleted all the time i guess i will just have to leave this conversation and give up.

Last thing i want to say (i really hope it's fine to say this...):
Endgame (like PvP and PvE hardmodes) is very important for games like ESO. Why would anyone want to play an MMORPG if there is nothing to do after getting your chars ready? Why would i learn to play if i can't use it? If i just want to quest and look at flowers, i play a single player game with no crown store...

EdjeSwift

Freilauftomate wrote: »

Last thing i want to say (i really hope it's fine to say this...):
Endgame (like PvP and PvE hardmodes) is very important for games like ESO. Why would anyone want to play an MMORPG if there is nothing to do after getting your chars ready? Why would i learn to play if i can't use it? If i just want to quest and look at flowers, i play a single player game with no crown store...

Endgame is important yes, but it's far from the selling point for ESO or any other MMO. People like to throw around numbers saying only x% of players do endgame content and while we don't have a solid number it's colloquially true for nearly every MMO. The players who are on the bleeding edge of content whether it's PvP or PvE endgame is a small percentage of the playerbase.

What's one of the most common phrases you hear in General Chat? "XXXXX is the true endgame". How often is is Raids/Trials or PvP? Almost never in my experience, it's usually fashion or housing. We can't view the population or the game as a whole through our own personal lens because it's far from fair, there are tons of people out there who genuinely enjoy the zen of farming mats or the meticulousness of perfectly decorating their home. Their opinions and place in this game are just as valid as "end game" players who enjoy PvP and PvE. Unfortunately PvP, Cyrodiil in particular, hasn't' been given the most attention so it may seem like the game is "dying" to those players who are diehards for it, but there are a lot of other players out there who enjoy this game and see it as thriving.

TaSheen

I am so done with anything endgame after burn out in WoW and RIFT. Not ever messing with it (or pvp) again. Questing, outfits, housing - works for me.

ESO_player123

Freilauftomate wrote: »

alternatelder wrote: »

Freilauftomate wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

...many old veteran players who are literally just endgaming rn are wishing for a merge, to bring life back into the game

Where is the data to support this?

Yeah, some scientists should do a couple of "randomized controlled trials" for the next 10 years, to see what would have been the best solution to revitalize the game... /s

Or we could try to listen to people who have been playing this game for a long time, and know a lot of bored and frustrated long-term customers (or now mostly ex-customers).

It will be interesting to see how many of all the new accounts will stay in the game long enough to reach endgame... [snip]

Merging the servers would not help the game for very long, without fixing the game. So i am not sure if this would be the best use of the scarce resources this company is willing to invest back into ESO.

[edited for baiting]

Most, if not all, of the people who are bored, or claim the game is dead are people who strictly pvp, or are interested only in endgame content like trials and leaderboards. Go to any game forum and it's the same thing. Pvpers mad at lack of content and endgamers wanting harder content because the rest of the game is boring/dead. But that game's population is healthy, many people playing everywhere.

-snip
Endgame (like PvP and PvE hardmodes) is very important for games like ESO. Why would anyone want to play an MMORPG if there is nothing to do after getting your chars ready? Why would i learn to play if i can't use it? If i just want to quest and look at flowers, i play a single player game with no crown store...

Because it's an Elder Scrolls game? Personally, I've never done PvP in any MMORPGs I played, and I'm not good enough with combat to do any HM endgame content. I'm here and I'm enjoying the game. I'm sure there are a lot of people like me.

Elsonso

ESO_player123 wrote: »

Freilauftomate wrote: »

Endgame (like PvP and PvE hardmodes) is very important for games like ESO. Why would anyone want to play an MMORPG if there is nothing to do after getting your chars ready? Why would i learn to play if i can't use it? If i just want to quest and look at flowers, i play a single player game with no crown store...

Because it's an Elder Scrolls game? Personally, I've never done PvP in any MMORPGs I played, and I'm not good enough with combat to do any HM endgame content. I'm here and I'm enjoying the game. I'm sure there are a lot of people like me.

If you look at aggregate achievements for ESO, it is easy to draw the conclusion that most active players are not engaging in "end-game" content in a serious manner. At least, not enough to grab the various achievements and garner notice.

MISTFORMBZZZ

Tyrant_Tim wrote: »

https://mmo-population.com/

Regardless of whether one believes that the game is dying, it goes without saying that the game isn’t leading any charts in terms of population.

ESO used to be neck and neck with World of Warcraft, now it’s #15 behind games like Guild Wars 2 and MapleStory…

Thanks for the data.. Behind guild wars lmao..

This is how it feels tbh, you can tell outside of events its so empty on PS EU

Treeshka

I think this game does not need a complete server merge but ability to do content cross server would be so good. I doubt it is possible with the current server architecture though.

MISTFORMBZZZ

[

Freilauftomate wrote: »

alternatelder wrote: »

Freilauftomate wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

...many old veteran players who are literally just endgaming rn are wishing for a merge, to bring life back into the game

Where is the data to support this?

Yeah, some scientists should do a couple of "randomized controlled trials" for the next 10 years, to see what would have been the best solution to revitalize the game... /s

Or we could try to listen to people who have been playing this game for a long time, and know a lot of bored and frustrated long-term customers (or now mostly ex-customers).

It will be interesting to see how many of all the new accounts will stay in the game long enough to reach endgame... [snip]

Merging the servers would not help the game for very long, without fixing the game. So i am not sure if this would be the best use of the scarce resources this company is willing to invest back into ESO.

[edited for baiting]

Most, if not all, of the people who are bored, or claim the game is dead are people who strictly pvp, or are interested only in endgame content like trials and leaderboards. Go to any game forum and it's the same thing. Pvpers mad at lack of content and endgamers wanting harder content because the rest of the game is boring/dead. But that game's population is healthy, many people playing everywhere.

Where is the data to support this?

I AM JOKING, PLEASE DON'T KILL ME!

I really would like to talk about this, but since important parts of my posts get deleted all the time i guess i will just have to leave this conversation and give up.

Last thing i want to say (i really hope it's fine to say this...):
Endgame (like PvP and PvE hardmodes) is very important for games like ESO. Why would anyone want to play an MMORPG if there is nothing to do after getting your chars ready? Why would i learn to play if i can't use it? If i just want to quest and look at flowers, i play a single player game with no crown store...

Idk what they deleted but thank you for joining the topic. Good to have some people from the same server, who experienced the same issues.

Ph1p

Tyrant_Tim wrote: »

https://mmo-population.com/

Regardless of whether one believes that the game is dying, it goes without saying that the game isn’t leading any charts in terms of population.

ESO used to be neck and neck with World of Warcraft, now it’s #15 behind games like Guild Wars 2 and MapleStory…

MMO Population is known to be highly inaccurate, just like all the other activity trackers out there. The creator even acknowledges that on the website: "Of course the data is not extremely accurate, or in many cases, accurate at all."

It's entirely based on Reddit subscribers and active users, using a one-size-fits-all formula to calculate an activity rating and daily player score for each game. So if an MMO is mired in controversy and lots of people are debating online, it will show a high score. It's a nice tracker of Reddit activity, nothing else.

Maitsukas

Ph1p wrote: »

Tyrant_Tim wrote: »

https://mmo-population.com/

Regardless of whether one believes that the game is dying, it goes without saying that the game isn’t leading any charts in terms of population.

ESO used to be neck and neck with World of Warcraft, now it’s #15 behind games like Guild Wars 2 and MapleStory…

MMO Population is known to be highly inaccurate, just like all the other activity trackers out there. The creator even acknowledges that on the website: "Of course the data is not extremely accurate, or in many cases, accurate at all."

It's entirely based on Reddit subscribers and active users, using a one-size-fits-all formula to calculate an activity rating and daily player score for each game. So if an MMO is mired in controversy and lots of people are debating online, it will show a high score. It's a nice tracker of Reddit activity, nothing else.

Yeah, the only one who has accurate information on active player counts, is ZOS.

Whenever threads like these pop up, players need to understand, that the Steam metrics only show the owners of the Steam version of ESO in-game, not the retail/ESO Store or the Epic Games Launcher versions.

LalMirchi

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

The population on consoles are drastical low.
<snip>
The benefits of crossplay overhelm overall and zos should make this technical possible, better soon then later

I'm sorry but I for one do not agree.

In short this maneuver is not technically feasible IMHO and would waste valuable developer time in chasing a chimera.

James-Wayne

Sony don't allow cross play but merge other NA and EU servers together sure

Arunei

Braffin wrote: »

Maitsukas wrote: »

I see two major issues related to names:

1. Character names being shared. There are people that don't want a forced name change, no matter how long they've played with those characters. Who would take priority of keeping it?
2. Guild names being shared. These cannot be changed by players without disbanding a guild first.

How would you work around these problems to keep everyone satisfied?

I don't see a problem with shared character names. There are more than one "John Smith" or "Hans Maier" in RL too. There is no need for uniquely named characters.

Guild names are a different topic tho. I can't think of a solution for that atm.

People irl also have some sort of identifier, like Social Security numbers or something, so even if there are a bunch of people with the same name irl they have ways of telling those people apart for identification purposes (for things like bank accounts, government aid like grants, etc).

In ESO that unique identification IS the character name, since only one iteration can exist on each server. If the servers were merged, people with the same character names would VERY likely have the issue of character inventories and achievements getting all jumbled up.

You could say that ZOS could attach some sort of other identifier to each character name, or even better 100% do something to ensure character stuff is bound to the account in a way that prevents things from potentially getting mixed up or lost. But that's part of the database thing, where concerns with database info borking come in.

Also Microsoft owning ZOS doesn't necessarily mean they'd add crossplay. If there are hardware or software differences between console and PC (which I would assume there are since console can have different bugs than PC and vice versa), that would play more into trying to make crossplay work properly than a matter of ownership.

Braffin

Arunei wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Maitsukas wrote: »

I see two major issues related to names:

1. Character names being shared. There are people that don't want a forced name change, no matter how long they've played with those characters. Who would take priority of keeping it?
2. Guild names being shared. These cannot be changed by players without disbanding a guild first.

How would you work around these problems to keep everyone satisfied?

I don't see a problem with shared character names. There are more than one "John Smith" or "Hans Maier" in RL too. There is no need for uniquely named characters.

Guild names are a different topic tho. I can't think of a solution for that atm.

People irl also have some sort of identifier, like Social Security numbers or something, so even if there are a bunch of people with the same name irl they have ways of telling those people apart for identification purposes (for things like bank accounts, government aid like grants, etc).

In ESO that unique identification IS the character name, since only one iteration can exist on each server.

.

Nope, that's not correct. The unique identification is somehow done by class (probably class+number) according to zos. They revealed that as official reason for not being able to implement class change tokens.

There are plenty of reasons not to do crossplay. This thread once again convinced me of that. But character names aren't one of them.

MISTFORMBZZZ

Braffin wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Maitsukas wrote: »

I see two major issues related to names:

1. Character names being shared. There are people that don't want a forced name change, no matter how long they've played with those characters. Who would take priority of keeping it?
2. Guild names being shared. These cannot be changed by players without disbanding a guild first.

How would you work around these problems to keep everyone satisfied?

I don't see a problem with shared character names. There are more than one "John Smith" or "Hans Maier" in RL too. There is no need for uniquely named characters.

Guild names are a different topic tho. I can't think of a solution for that atm.

People irl also have some sort of identifier, like Social Security numbers or something, so even if there are a bunch of people with the same name irl they have ways of telling those people apart for identification purposes (for things like bank accounts, government aid like grants, etc).

In ESO that unique identification IS the character name, since only one iteration can exist on each server.

.

Nope, that's not correct. The unique identification is somehow done by class (probably class+nb) according to zos. They revealed that as official reason for not being able to implement class change tokens.

There are plenty of reasons not to do crossplay. This thread once again convinced me of that. But character names aren't one of them.

what are your reasons to not do crossplay, since the benefits overhelm ?

Braffin

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Maitsukas wrote: »

I see two major issues related to names:

1. Character names being shared. There are people that don't want a forced name change, no matter how long they've played with those characters. Who would take priority of keeping it?
2. Guild names being shared. These cannot be changed by players without disbanding a guild first.

How would you work around these problems to keep everyone satisfied?

I don't see a problem with shared character names. There are more than one "John Smith" or "Hans Maier" in RL too. There is no need for uniquely named characters.

Guild names are a different topic tho. I can't think of a solution for that atm.

People irl also have some sort of identifier, like Social Security numbers or something, so even if there are a bunch of people with the same name irl they have ways of telling those people apart for identification purposes (for things like bank accounts, government aid like grants, etc).

In ESO that unique identification IS the character name, since only one iteration can exist on each server.

.

Nope, that's not correct. The unique identification is somehow done by class (probably class+nb) according to zos. They revealed that as official reason for not being able to implement class change tokens.

There are plenty of reasons not to do crossplay. This thread once again convinced me of that. But character names aren't one of them.

what are your reasons to not do crossplay, since the benefits overhelm ?

I'm mainly concerned about the databases and zos' ability to merge them. If this isn't done flawlessly, there is major and irreversible damage done to the game. And I don't have enough trust in their skills tbh, as the failed code rework and the amount of consistent or recurring bugs (not even talk about newly added ones) is far too high imo.

There is also a more personal reason, I admit:

I don't see any overwhelming benefits tbh. I play on pc eu and nothing would change for me.

Except I'd would loose a bunch of friends to play with and some useful QoL, if add-ons were deactivated to enable crossplay between pc and consoles and cater to the "add-ons are cheating" crowd found on the latter.

Oh wait, I wouldn't, because I'd simply stop playing the game too.

NeuroticPixels

Arunei wrote: »

People irl also have some sort of identifier, like Social Security numbers or something, so even if there are a bunch of people with the same name irl they have ways of telling those people apart for identification purposes (for things like bank accounts, government aid like grants, etc).

In ESO that unique identification IS the character name, since only one iteration can exist on each server.

Sort of. Our character names (“character ID”) are translated (probably not the right word) into numbers. You can see this in some addons’ saved variables; ones without account-wide settings enabled.

So, each character name is unique already. They just have something in place that blocks taking a name already “taken”. But I don’t know if these numeric identifications tell the system what server they’re from. If it does, they could add a way to separate same-names onto one server to combine NA and EU if they wanted. But… pretty sure the main issue is their servers. I imagine they’re the biggest hindrance when it comes to any kind of merging.

Besides… account names are what’s most important. Character names are useless flair, imo.

SilverBride

If add-ons were no longer allowed I would quit and I am very confident in saying that many others would, too. We have had these QoL features for 10 years and removing them would completely destroy the experience we have always known.

So what would be the point of merging servers if the other servers would just be merging with a now mostly empty one?

Mik195

SilverBride wrote: »

If add-ons were no longer allowed I would quit and I am very confident in saying that many others would, too. We have had these QoL features for 10 years and removing them would completely destroy the experience we have always known.

So what would be the point of merging servers if the other servers would just be merging with a now mostly empty one?

And if I had to play with "easy mode" pc add on users, I'd quit. Merging servers between console and PCs makes no sense unless you want to damage the player base.

SilverBride

Mik195 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

If add-ons were no longer allowed I would quit and I am very confident in saying that many others would, too. We have had these QoL features for 10 years and removing them would completely destroy the experience we have always known.

So what would be the point of merging servers if the other servers would just be merging with a now mostly empty one?

And if I had to play with "easy mode" pc add on users, I'd quit. Merging servers between console and PCs makes no sense unless you want to damage the player base.

Add-ons are not "easy mode". They are quality of life. Just like using a washer and dryer in real life rather than beating our clothes on rocks and tossing them over tree branches to dry. Doing those things isn't "hard" but is time consuming and tedious. It's the same with add-ons. They allow us to quickly get our tasks out of the way so we can enjoy more play time.

Yes there are add-ons that give combat cues etc., but I don't agree that these make it "easier". The skills still need to be executed in the right way to be effective.

Four_Fingers

Yeah by the time you get and react to "Cleanse Now" it is usually too late.

Kiyakotari

So for those of us who play on both servers, and have max'd out character counts...how would this work?

NeuroticPixels

Clearly there are things some people haven’t considered. And none of us know their spaghetti code or what exactly the servers could handle.

But, as I often say, it’s not our job as players to answer these questions. We’re here to put our ideas, hopes, gripes, and wishes out into the official forums made for doing so.
Devs hold the burden of communication to the player base as to why things would or wouldn’t be possible, and why they don’t want to change/implement things.

So we shouldn’t try to discount each other or ideas, etc. If you don’t want something someone else wants, you’re free to say so. But trying to find holes or hinderances doesn’t add value to the conversation, imo. The people at ZOS get paid to consider those things.

Just my 2 cents.

SilverBride

NeuroticPixels wrote: »

So we shouldn’t try to discount each other or ideas, etc. If you don’t want something someone else wants, you’re free to say so. But trying to find holes or hinderances doesn’t add value to the conversation, imo. The people at ZOS get paid to consider those things.

It's not a matter of finding holes or hindrances. It's a matter of looking at both the pros and the cons, and anticipating any negative effects that would have to be remedied before a new idea would be implemented. This is especially important when concerning a change as major as the one being proposed here.

ZoS ultimately makes these decisions but negative feedback is just as constructive as positive.

MISTFORMBZZZ

Braffin wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Maitsukas wrote: »

I see two major issues related to names:

1. Character names being shared. There are people that don't want a forced name change, no matter how long they've played with those characters. Who would take priority of keeping it?
2. Guild names being shared. These cannot be changed by players without disbanding a guild first.

How would you work around these problems to keep everyone satisfied?

I don't see a problem with shared character names. There are more than one "John Smith" or "Hans Maier" in RL too. There is no need for uniquely named characters.

Guild names are a different topic tho. I can't think of a solution for that atm.

People irl also have some sort of identifier, like Social Security numbers or something, so even if there are a bunch of people with the same name irl they have ways of telling those people apart for identification purposes (for things like bank accounts, government aid like grants, etc).

In ESO that unique identification IS the character name, since only one iteration can exist on each server.

.

Nope, that's not correct. The unique identification is somehow done by class (probably class+nb) according to zos. They revealed that as official reason for not being able to implement class change tokens.

There are plenty of reasons not to do crossplay. This thread once again convinced me of that. But character names aren't one of them.

what are your reasons to not do crossplay, since the benefits overhelm ?

I'm mainly concerned about the databases and zos' ability to merge them. If this isn't done flawlessly, there is major and irreversible damage done to the game. And I don't have enough trust in their skills tbh, as the failed code rework and the amount of consistent or recurring bugs (not even talk about newly added ones) is far too high imo.

There is also a more personal reason, I admit:

I don't see any overwhelming benefits tbh. I play on pc eu and nothing would change for me.

Except I'd would loose a bunch of friends to play with and some useful QoL, if add-ons were deactivated to enable crossplay between pc and consoles and cater to the "add-ons are cheating" crowd found on the latter.

Oh wait, I wouldn't, because I'd simply stop playing the game too.

But without meaning it mean, which part of merge consoles with consoles did you not understand?
I said multiple times pc servers are fine.