Poll should be renamed "Are you representative of forum posters but not the broader "active player" group?"

results would just carryover.

I haven't maxed out everything. I am too broke in game for that. But I did just upgrade my bank to 110.

UrQuan wrote: »

Stormahawk wrote: »

This poll is more representative of the active player base than from where they got their 50% statistic from.

The forum population isn't especially representative of the active player base. Having said that, I don't disagree with your statement that I've quoted. The forum population may not be especially representative of the active player base, but I'd agree that it's highly likely to be more representative of the active player base than where ZOS got the 50% statistic from.

Unless we're really totally out of reality, and the vast majority of ESO players just uses the game as a big theme park for role playing, getting dressed, taking screenshots and playing "Sims in Tamriel" ?

I'm not ironic here. I'm rather quite puzzled by this statistic. Either ZOS think we're stupid and lies to us, or they've considered a totally inappropriate base for their statistics... or we as regular players/forumers have simply NO IDEA what the actual playerbase really looks like or really is ?

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

The more relevant number is the 97% of us who have never upgraded storage all the way to max.

This means for 97% of players, there is still more storage space we can buy with in-game gold or crowns. I suppose only 3% of players would be the primary prospects for buying that extra space beyond what is available from upgrading bank and backpack.

We actually don't know if 97% is the right number. Does ZOS count alts? Abandoned accounts? I haven't maxed out inventory on all my alts, so I theoretically have more space available, but I don't consider mules proper storage - they're inconvenient as hell, I'm not going to sink hundreds of thousands of gold into the last few upgrade tiers for their personal inventory. However, I would be willing to pay for more storage available without relogging. If I could expand my bank further than 240, I would. If I could use manequinns to store armor sets in my house, I would. But apparently I can't because I didn't fully invest into the super inconvenient storage option first.

You also have to consider that the players on these forums represent an ultra-minority, so even if almost everyone here votes they upgraded, that would represent, a small fraction of a percent of the 7M accounts.

Rosveen wrote: »

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

The more relevant number is the 97% of us who have never upgraded storage all the way to max.

This means for 97% of players, there is still more storage space we can buy with in-game gold or crowns. I suppose only 3% of players would be the primary prospects for buying that extra space beyond what is available from upgrading bank and backpack.

We actually don't know if 97% is the right number. Does ZOS count alts? Abandoned accounts? I haven't maxed out inventory on all my alts, so I theoretically have more space available, but I don't consider mules proper storage - they're inconvenient as hell, I'm not going to sink hundreds of thousands of gold into the last few upgrade tiers for their personal inventory. However, I would be willing to pay for more storage available without relogging. If I could expand my bank further than 240, I would. If I could use manequinns to store armor sets in my house, I would. But apparently I can't because I didn't fully invest into the super inconvenient storage option first.

This post highlights the problem with relying too much on raw statistics to make decisions without doing a deep dive to understand what is driving those statistics. On the face of it "only 3% have maxed out their capacity" can be interpreted as "only 3% are potentially in the market for another way to increase their capacity" when in fact there may be specific reasons why people aren't taking full advantage of the currently available ways to increase their capacity, even though those people would be interested in another way to increase their capacity.

This is something I personally have a lot of experience with. My job is risk-based analysis, and it's all based on pulling together statistics and looking for trends, but once you're seeing something in the numbers that you think is significant, you need to do a deep dive analysis to see what's driving those numbers before you draw conclusions from it or take action based on it.

UrQuan wrote: »

Rosveen wrote: »

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

The more relevant number is the 97% of us who have never upgraded storage all the way to max.

This means for 97% of players, there is still more storage space we can buy with in-game gold or crowns. I suppose only 3% of players would be the primary prospects for buying that extra space beyond what is available from upgrading bank and backpack.

We actually don't know if 97% is the right number. Does ZOS count alts? Abandoned accounts? I haven't maxed out inventory on all my alts, so I theoretically have more space available, but I don't consider mules proper storage - they're inconvenient as hell, I'm not going to sink hundreds of thousands of gold into the last few upgrade tiers for their personal inventory. However, I would be willing to pay for more storage available without relogging. If I could expand my bank further than 240, I would. If I could use manequinns to store armor sets in my house, I would. But apparently I can't because I didn't fully invest into the super inconvenient storage option first.

This post highlights the problem with relying too much on raw statistics to make decisions without doing a deep dive to understand what is driving those statistics. On the face of it "only 3% have maxed out their capacity" can be interpreted as "only 3% are potentially in the market for another way to increase their capacity" when in fact there may be specific reasons why people aren't taking full advantage of the currently available ways to increase their capacity, even though those people would be interested in another way to increase their capacity.

This is something I personally have a lot of experience with. My job is risk-based analysis, and it's all based on pulling together statistics and looking for trends, but once you're seeing something in the numbers that you think is significant, you need to do a deep dive analysis to see what's driving those numbers before you draw conclusions from it or take action based on it.

Whether or not most of us have maxed storage space is a non-sequitur in relation to the "need" for housing storage. For starting players the cost of upgrading your bags is quite high and upgrading your mount capacity is very slow. Having some small storage capacity in your house would actually be a great boon to lower level players and give high level players a place to stockpile supplies. (Trial food and potions, for example.) This can also help with trading as you can have a location to work out of in conjunction with crafting. You can put the items you want to sell into storage at the house so that they're out of your inventory. (Assuming you don't have access to a guild trader, that's a decent boon.)
The overall impression I get from this decision was that they were looking for a reason not to add storage space for the housing.

I just posted this on another thread, I think it is relative:
I just realized and I think ZOS may have been thinking like I have. When people are speaking of storage they are speaking of storage chests. Now if you mean display chests, wall hangings, or dummies ( displaing armour and weapons ), that is a whole other thing.

The main reason they gave for not including in the initial release is that most people have not maxed out what they have now. They think you are asking for storage chests.

176 votes and not a single "no" troll yet?! (because a no vote is certainly only a troll.. or the player hasn't got out of the wailing prison yet).

-Aletheion

double post

I have completely upgraded bag on my main and I have 4 upgrades left for bank. It becomes expensive. But still more useful than ridiculous housing.

ADarklore wrote: »

You also have to consider that the players on these forums represent an ultra-minority, so even if almost everyone here votes they upgraded, that would represent, a small fraction of a percent of the 7M accounts.

200 respondents is a pretty significant sample size.

wrote:

i dont follow the boon for low level players.

Early bank and inventory boosts are cheap and easy and readily available.

The furniture crafting is more complex than a struggling low level player is gonna be as likely to be using as their go-to for storage.

its just a disconnect in logic to imagine they would get into a more complex housing and build/buy cheats/closets etc type system rather than use the inexpensive upgrade options for bank, backpack and horse in their early goings.

Because most new players don't have 30k gold sitting in the bank. And that's just for bag upgrades. The horse upgrades are extremely slow. They might, however, have enough crowns from the start to afford a house and storage. There's also the matter of time investment. (60 days for just the horse. Not counting the amount of time it may take to get the horse.) The top level bank storage increases are expensive. Even for high level players, they're a significant investment.

I'll also add, I said low level not new players. I have a few low level alts which I may or may not keep and putting a 60000 gold investment into their inventory space is a potential waste. If I can acquire a small house and storage, I may just use that storage for my low level alts and dedicate my bank space to keeping high level gear. (I have a very wide assortment of sets in the bank and plan on collecting many more.)

The crafting bag isn't an issue for me, but it's another potential reason for low level players and nonsubcribers to invest in housing storage.


If you can buy the house with crowns and purchase storage with crowns too, it's fairly easy to see how it would be advantageous. Even if you can't buy the storage with crowns, some time invested in making furniture could easily outweigh getting bank and bag space.

Katahdin wrote: »

Bank and 12 characters maxed out.

Apparently I am one of the 3% of the playerbase that has done that. Seems a bit unbelievable that its that low.


.

I don't think it's unbelievable at all. Upgrading inventory is very expensive - I don't think veterans and active traders understand just how much. I see a person say they can max out inv on a new char in 10 days just by spending what they earn and I feel like we're playing two different games, starting with the fact that in those same 10 days I had maybe 2-3 free evenings to launch the game at all.

I think most of us have an alt or three used only as storage mules and I'd risk a guess that their inventory often isn't maxed out. For those of us who don't play ESO like it's our second job, investing into the characters we actually play is already a big strain on the budget.

Besides, every time you make a new alt - even one you do want to play - you temporarily fall out of the 3%.