Enodoc wrote: »

For the answer to the question ("why no underwater gameplay?"), watch Armchair Developer (starts at 1:11:00):

https://youtu.be/uxigt8ipK1g?t=1h11m

TL/DW: "it's too hard!"

That's pretty much what they say.

Gidorick wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

For the answer to the question ("why no underwater gameplay?"), watch Armchair Developer (starts at 1:11:00):

https://youtu.be/uxigt8ipK1g?t=1h11m

TL/DW: "it's too hard!"

That's pretty much what they say.

That's not a good reflection at all of what they say. They enumerate the complications of the addition of underwater content, and muse whether it's worth it.

I personally am skeptical about underwater content. Never played a game that did anything interesting with it. TES games you could swim underwater, there occasionally was a chest, hurray. Witcher 3 idem. Only game with fleshed out underwater combat I played was Guild Wars 2, and I personally think it's an annoying mess. 3D space is a hell for AI and player both, navigating and targeting combat abilities makes for super awkward and frustrating gameplay. There's a reason ANet removed all underwater parts from the PvP components of their game, aren't adding underwater content in new maps nor adding underwater anything. Despite regular clamor of people asking for a revamp.

ZOS either has the arduous task to completely rewrite part of the engine, design all new animations, rework part of the combat system and design content that actually make use of all this; they could scrap underwater combat and just give underwater exploration, which imo (from experience with TES games and games like TW3) hardly add gameplay value; or they don't do either, and continue to expand their game on land which arguably allows them to create more content and for which they have all assets in place. From a business perspective seems like a pretty clear choice, and I'd support them for it.

And, people can talk above water, they build castles above water, they write books above water: all major stories always take place above water, because that's where humanoids live. Above water is generally just a far more interesting place.

danno8 wrote: »

GW2 has some of the best underwater combat of any mmo.

And most people can't wait to get out of the water and back on land where the "real" action is.

You are not going to keep existing customers or draw in new ones with underwater action. It would be a terrible cost/payoff ratio.

I'm not against it, but there is a reason it's not there.

I've long thought GW2's experience might be part of the reason ESO doesn't have it.

petraeus1 wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

For the answer to the question ("why no underwater gameplay?"), watch Armchair Developer (starts at 1:11:00):

https://youtu.be/uxigt8ipK1g?t=1h11m

TL/DW: "it's too hard!"

That's pretty much what they say.

That's not a good reflection at all of what they say. They enumerate the complications of the addition of underwater content, and muse whether it's worth it.

I personally am skeptical about underwater content. Never played a game that did anything interesting with it. TES games you could swim underwater, there occasionally was a chest, hurray. Witcher 3 idem. Only game with fleshed out underwater combat I played was Guild Wars 2, and I personally think it's an annoying mess. 3D space is a hell for AI and player both, navigating and targeting combat abilities makes for super awkward and frustrating gameplay. There's a reason ANet removed all underwater parts from the PvP components of their game, aren't adding underwater content in new maps nor adding underwater anything. Despite regular clamor of people asking for a revamp.

ZOS either has the arduous task to completely rewrite part of the engine, design all new animations, rework part of the combat system and design content that actually make use of all this; they could scrap underwater combat and just give underwater exploration, which imo (from experience with TES games and games like TW3) hardly add gameplay value; or they don't do either, and continue to expand their game on land which arguably allows them to create more content and for which they have all assets in place. From a business perspective seems like a pretty clear choice, and I'd support them for it.

And, people can talk above water, they build castles above water, they write books above water: all major stories always take place above water, because that's where humanoids live. Above water is generally just a far more interesting place.

i agree with you

Katahdin wrote: »

In GW2, they have awesome UW exploration and combat. In my estimation 75%+ of the player base hates it.

danno8 wrote: »

GW2 has some of the best underwater combat of any mmo.

And most people can't wait to get out of the water and back on land where the "real" action is.

People do hate it in GW2, even though it is superbly done. Some people just notice they hadn't changed their underwater weapons for the last 20 lvls when they roll the Underwater Fractal for the first time (fractals are a bunch of mini-dungeons). Though I don't play GW2 since last November and I don't know if something changed.

It would be lots of work and money for something that lots of people would most likely avoid, and complain when they can't avoid it.

No excuse is valid, if MMOs over 10 years old have under water cities, combat and exploration its hard to belive it can't be achieved in an MMO that released 2 years ago.

Ra'Shtar wrote: »

No excuse is valid, if MMOs over 10 years old have under water cities, combat and exploration its hard to belive it can't be achieved in an MMO that released 2 years ago.

I completely agree @Ra'Shtar , and them having absolutely no plans to add this feature is inexcusable.

Gidorick wrote: »

Ra'Shtar wrote: »

No excuse is valid, if MMOs over 10 years old have under water cities, combat and exploration its hard to belive it can't be achieved in an MMO that released 2 years ago.

I completely agree @Ra'Shtar , and them having absolutely no plans to add this feature is inexcusable.

The entitlement. For all intents and purposes, the game's ZOS' property, and despite claims this feature might be for the best of the game, saying one's own suggestions not being catered to is inexcusable (even if supported by other players, even if this thread was created by another), comes across rather arrogant and is something I can't understand

Niaver wrote: »

I was really dissapointed back in the beta when i realised there's no underwater world in the game.
But hey... we even't cant walk on the roofs in old locations, that's how the world is built in the game.

This made a lot of us sad. It was always fun diving into the water in those past games, and needing to quaff a waterbreathing potion or put your ring of water breathing or scroll of waterbreathing. It would be nice as well if slaughterfish weren't the instant death that they are currently. The slaughterfish of this era are like the Cliff Racers of the Morrowind Era :P (Super Annoying).

Anyway, its quite possible they might find a way to make water exploration possible in the future. I wouldn't hold your breath, but its a groovy new feature they could add later when they've got the time and inclination, and when it actually suits some DLC they're adding to the game (Pirate DLC seems appropriate).