Storage wasn't added cause only 3% of the active player base has max upgraded their bags and bank!

STEVIL · January 2017

Ashtaris wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno, ZOS_RichLambert, if anyone is being insulted, it's our intelligence. Currently my bank space is at max level, and most of my alts are maxed on their inventory, but not all. Even so, I still want storage available in my homes. It's not about just the storage, it's about convenience and organization. It would be great if any character I have could go to a certain container in my home and know that I will find all the Spriggan or Viper pieces I've collected, or Treasure maps, etc. Whatever I want to organize and make easily available to my characters, that's what it is really all about.

All in favor of them adding segregated storage elements and not just "mo' bank space". The new sets-a-plenty paradigm makes it more about clutter than capacity for me as well.

Enslaved · January 2017

This excuse is something most insulting I have ever read. And I use internet.

LegendaryMage · January 2017

So what's the bottom line, storage will come along the way?

Akrasjel · January 2017

TequilaFire wrote: »

They forgot to mention that only a small percent have bought the banker from the crown store.

Could you back this up with some data, thank you.

STEVIL · January 2017

LegendaryMage wrote: »

So what's the bottom line, storage will come along the way?

Basically yeah - every comment about no storage housing from ZoS folks has been about and from the perspective of "getting it in first release" and having to prioritize.

it will come along the way and likely in a variety of forms.

For instance:
Some might want "storage" that works like bank - access to big chunk - or maybe even directly links to bank.
Others might want "organized" storage with chest or closets you can "name" like "spriggans stuff" or "potion chest" where you can tell by looking, not opening, the stuff you put inside.
Others might want racks where you can store "outfits" of gear and weapons and jewels and potions you can swap into as a package in a click.
others might want "display" type storage - shows off the materials - like say a "Potion shelf" where you could cursor over the items themselves and click to pick up like happens on desks all over 1T now.

There are a ton of different ways storage in housing can work and should work for different needs and its not a small feat to give time and effort to deciding which will serve more etc and build it in.

most likely we will see one piece here, one piece there and as they see what is getting used - more of the same.

corrosivechains · January 2017

SO pretty much Bethesda Maryland is some sort of bubble completely separated from the reality from the rest of the world shares, where every citizen happens to be a multi-millionaire at the poorest levels, and everyone is immortal so the concept of time is completely alien to them.

Man, I really fudged my dice roll on the birth thing.

Gandrhulf_Harbard · January 2017

leeux wrote: »

They may have "raw numbers", but they surely don't know how to read/understand them and/or they purposely misinterpret them to suit their needs.

Data crunching intelligence is more than reading a table of numbers and going: "yea, you know... a bunch of people don't upgrade inventory space, so screw that."

There are reason why people wouldn't upgrade some characters, I have some: I intend to DELETE them at some point, why would I spend gold on upgrading a char that I don't intend to keep?

Another reason: total bag space is not what's matter, is the "working" inventory, i.e. the sum of the bag space of your active char and bank, because the less you have of that the more annoying the game becomes, so it's then when you create a new char to remove stuff from your bank, and the cycle continues. And when you fill that last char you created, would you upgrade inv on it? If you created JUST as a mule, and don't intend to play it... why would you?

But char swapping to move stuff around is so time consuming in the base game's UI, you cannot be doing that all the time, and certainly not while you are expected to be playing the game (i.e. your mates are waiting for you in the dungeon while you track where the hell you've put the one piece of SPC you need for your healer, because you just completed it and wanted to try using it!)

^ This.

The statement by ZOS on storage show at best a naive understanding of what the data is saying, and at worst a total misunderstanding of what the data in saying.

How about the single biggest reason players do not upgrade Banking and Personal Storage and create baseline Alts for extra storage: it is now and has always been to damned expensive. Especially for new players.

All The Best

Gandrhulf_Harbard · January 2017

ToxicPAWS wrote: »

They need to hire a new Data Analyst.

Just any data analyst would be a start.

All The Best

Gandrhulf_Harbard · January 2017

Kyle1983b14_ESO wrote: »

They actually used that comment on the live stream? Jeese, and I thought ESO was turning out better than Swtor, it is exactly the same, Swtor 2.0 great.

Might be something to do with who is in charge of monetising everything that can be monetised.

All The Best

DarcyMardin · January 2017

Their excuse is crazy. I subscribe, so I have the craft bag, and I have nearly maxed my storage on my main and 9 alts, but the remaining slots are too expensive. I don't have millions of gold. I don't yet have my first million, in fact--probably because of all the gold I have *already* spent on storage. The largest house I can afford is the medium-sized one, and I have no clue where I'm going to store the furniture I hope to craft.

Silver_Strider · January 2017

Stupid reason is stupid.
Disrespecting your player base isn't exactly smart for a company to do if they want to stay in business.

willlienellson · January 2017

Most people I know are using some alt characters on their account AS bank space "mules" precisely because the storage system is so broken and limited in ESO. So to suggest that players are not getting house storage because they haven't fully embraced that broken system across all their alt characters is absurd.
@ZOS_GinaBruno
@ZOS_RichLambert

Players are using alt characters to replace your broken banking system. It's evidence of the opposite of the conclusion you reached.
Furthermore, you are introducing 2000+ new items to the game. Even if your conclusion was correct (which it isn't), what on earth makes you think that it would accurately reflect people's needs after Homestead???

Cadbury · January 2017

It would be amusing if they decided to add storage to housing a year from now....

"Oopsies!"

Asgari · January 2017

I'm almost positive when they run these analyses they do not exclude inactive accounts greater than 6 months.

STEVIL · January 2017

Princess_Asgari wrote: »

I'm almost positive when they run these analyses they do not exclude inactive accounts greater than 6 months.

Fantastic!

Someone with an almost positive degree of certainty on their methodology and analysis.

Can you let us in on your basis or facts that drives you to this certainty, cuz for me, not being involved in their analysis and hearing them specifically state "of active players" for the 50% factor, i came to a different position with a much lower degree of surety and i would love to have a better clearer more certain image of this.

Thanks

Cadbury · January 2017

I'm almost positive some are using the topic as a means of proselytism and chest-thumping.

Contraptions · January 2017

Call me a cynic, but I'm sure storage will come to houses when they find a way to monetize it. Giving people more storage slots diminishes the need for craft bag, alt storage accounts, and the need to buy more char slots for mules.

Konstant_Tel_Necris · January 2017

engramz wrote: »

9 characters, 8 are mules. Spend most of my gold on space upgrades, prioritise horse space over speed or stamina, and spend more time with inventory management than actually playing the game.

I agree with you, I recently found that's I dont want log into game just because I remember that's my main four character's have only 20-30 cells free space in bags and I need to manage all that's inventory hell on my 12 character's with tiresome logoff-loggin limbo on all of my characters, just to start to play even more I starting loose my urge to play new characters because I need first empty they bags into bank then logoff login and move items to other character.

Should I say thats I maxed they horse bags, almost upgraded to max their bugs and increased bank storage limits?

What I need to do next? Purchase another account and move items there? But what I will do with all my bound items then?

I was hoped thats in Homestead I can buy or craft some chest and put my items there, but seems all what I can do its sit on chair and switch lights on\off

Lylith · January 2017

TequilaFire wrote: »

They forgot to mention that only a small percent have bought the banker from the crown store.
Need to sell more bakers, let them place banker in the house and buy more bank space.

the banker should've come with additional bank space. (and guild bank/store capability)

TequilaFire · January 2017

Akrasjel wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

They forgot to mention that only a small percent have bought the banker from the crown store.

Could you back this up with some data, thank you.

How many players do you see running around with bankers?
Can you backup the contrary with some data? Thank you.

flubber77 · January 2017

i have 12 toons, almost maxed out in iventory, i have 2 guildbanks that im use as a private bank and ofc my own bank are maxed out. and i still need more space, alots of more space. cause all of the sets you are pumping out. i dont have space for them. and u deny us this cause of players who bearly plays?? wtf is wrong with you? if they dont need it, who care, its a choise them make. I DO NEED IT. and i know alots of others who need it.

the private bank should have at least 1000 slots and your inventory on each character should have the same. the guild bank should have 3 times the amount u can have on a character and bank together.

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_JessicaFolsom pls fix this. why are we getting punished for people who dont play the game? i did think active players ment something nut i guess im wrong...

disintegr8 · January 2017

I am not maxed out in space on any character or in the bank. I do however have 2 mules at 170 bag space, 8 characters between 170 and 190 bag space, 210 in the bank, have the ESO+ craft bag, as well as a second ESO account with 8 toons that each have 70 slots full.

My initial reluctance to completely max out my bank and player capacity was simply due to the gold cost. Now that I can afford to max them out, I have realised that increasing bank and player storage does not fix my problem. Whether my account has 500 slots or 1500 slots, I will always get to the point of having to stop playing simply to manage inventory for an hour or two.

What housing storage would do for me, as it did in Skyrim, is make it easier to manage what I am storing. In Skyrim I had a house for armour storage, a house for alchemy, another for crafting, etc. I knew which chest/wardrobe/drawers of which room of which house I had to go to for a particular piece of inventory, be it a sword, a helmet, a potion, etc.

I think storage should be increased to cater for the additional sets that have been introduced and with the new crafting mats coming in with housing, this becomes an even higher priority. But for me I would primarily be using storage in houses to better manage my inventory.

Emencie · January 2017

This explanation actually made a lot of sense to me.

If increasing our bank by 170 slots costs 768,500 gold, it would make sense that housing storage would follow a similar progression. Perhaps 1,000,000 gold for every 200 slots of housing storage.

But if less than 3% of players have maxed out their banks, then it goes to reason more players will not use the housing storage when it's placed at a similar price. They will just keep using mules.

Seems logical.

I don't see the insult.

NewBlacksmurf · January 2017

Emencie wrote: »

This explanation actually made a lot of sense to me.

If increasing our bank by 170 slots costs 768,500 gold, it would make sense that housing storage would follow a similar progression. Perhaps 1,000,000 gold for every 200 slots of housing storage.

But if less than 3% of players have maxed out their banks, then it goes to reason more players will not use the housing storage when it's placed at a similar price. They will just keep using mules.

Seems logical.

I don't see the insult.

@Emencie

You see it but your maybe the type of player who would do otherwise.

The cost of upgrades may be something you would invest in...in part if not max while others may much rather have permanent inventory space regardless of alts

Emencie · January 2017

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Emencie wrote: »

This explanation actually made a lot of sense to me.

If increasing our bank by 170 slots costs 768,500 gold, it would make sense that housing storage would follow a similar progression. Perhaps 1,000,000 gold for every 200 slots of housing storage.

But if less than 3% of players have maxed out their banks, then it goes to reason more players will not use the housing storage when it's placed at a similar price. They will just keep using mules.

Seems logical.

I don't see the insult.

@Emencie

You see it but your maybe the type of player who would do otherwise.

The cost of upgrades may be something you would invest in...in part if not max while others may much rather have permanent inventory space regardless of alts

True.

The the logic still stands. If less than 3% of players would use it based on the fact that less than 3% of players use the other storage, it doesn't make much sense to put development time to it.

The only way I could see this differently is if people thought/think that housing storage was going to be either a lot cheaper than our current options, or free.

Waseem · January 2017

they come up with this bull *** everytime they skip a core featurre
like really, they say eso have playerbase of millions.. we still spend 20 minutes to form a group for a pledge.
they should calculate for active accounts that has been logged atleast once last 3 months.
when they post such stupid statistics, they take into consideration EVERY account. including those of people who bought the game but probably dont have a character with a level over 3.

edit: i also have a *** alternative account to store items because there is no enough slots in my main account
and im already with 12 characters.

NewBlacksmurf · January 2017

Emencie wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Emencie wrote: »

This explanation actually made a lot of sense to me.

If increasing our bank by 170 slots costs 768,500 gold, it would make sense that housing storage would follow a similar progression. Perhaps 1,000,000 gold for every 200 slots of housing storage.

But if less than 3% of players have maxed out their banks, then it goes to reason more players will not use the housing storage when it's placed at a similar price. They will just keep using mules.

Seems logical.

I don't see the insult.

@Emencie

You see it but your maybe the type of player who would do otherwise.

The cost of upgrades may be something you would invest in...in part if not max while others may much rather have permanent inventory space regardless of alts

True.

The the logic still stands. If less than 3% of players would use it based on the fact that less than 3% of players use the other storage, it doesn't make much sense to put development time to it.

The only way I could see this differently is if people thought/think that housing storage was going to be either a lot cheaper than our current options, or free.

@Emencie

I believe the idea is which investment is more valued. I would consider housing more permanent than each individual character.

That's just me tho

Emencie · January 2017

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Emencie wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Emencie wrote: »

This explanation actually made a lot of sense to me.

If increasing our bank by 170 slots costs 768,500 gold, it would make sense that housing storage would follow a similar progression. Perhaps 1,000,000 gold for every 200 slots of housing storage.

But if less than 3% of players have maxed out their banks, then it goes to reason more players will not use the housing storage when it's placed at a similar price. They will just keep using mules.

Seems logical.

I don't see the insult.

@Emencie

You see it but your maybe the type of player who would do otherwise.

The cost of upgrades may be something you would invest in...in part if not max while others may much rather have permanent inventory space regardless of alts

True.

The the logic still stands. If less than 3% of players would use it based on the fact that less than 3% of players use the other storage, it doesn't make much sense to put development time to it.

The only way I could see this differently is if people thought/think that housing storage was going to be either a lot cheaper than our current options, or free.

@Emencie

I believe the idea is which investment is more valued. I would consider housing more permanent than each individual character.

That's just me tho

Bank storage is account wide though.

I assumed that when we get housing storage it will be account wide as well. So It makes sense to me that it would be priced similarly, if not as an extension. For example, since it costs 768,500g for 170 account wide bank slots. Buying a house would give you the ability to purchase storage at 10 slots for 50,000. A flat fee making housing a little more expensive at 850,000 for another 170 slots.

I just don't understand what would cause one person to spend the gold on one, but not the other. So I see where the Devs were coming from with this comment.

NewBlacksmurf · January 2017

Emencie wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Emencie wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Emencie wrote: »

This explanation actually made a lot of sense to me.

If increasing our bank by 170 slots costs 768,500 gold, it would make sense that housing storage would follow a similar progression. Perhaps 1,000,000 gold for every 200 slots of housing storage.

But if less than 3% of players have maxed out their banks, then it goes to reason more players will not use the housing storage when it's placed at a similar price. They will just keep using mules.

Seems logical.

I don't see the insult.

@Emencie

You see it but your maybe the type of player who would do otherwise.

The cost of upgrades may be something you would invest in...in part if not max while others may much rather have permanent inventory space regardless of alts

True.

The the logic still stands. If less than 3% of players would use it based on the fact that less than 3% of players use the other storage, it doesn't make much sense to put development time to it.

The only way I could see this differently is if people thought/think that housing storage was going to be either a lot cheaper than our current options, or free.

@Emencie

I believe the idea is which investment is more valued. I would consider housing more permanent than each individual character.

That's just me tho

Bank storage is account wide though.

I assumed that when we get housing storage it will be account wide as well. So It makes sense to me that it would be priced similarly, if not as an extension. For example, since it costs 768,500g for 170 account wide bank slots. Buying a house would give you the ability to purchase storage at 10 slots for 50,000. A flat fee making housing a little more expensive at 850,000 for another 170 slots.

I just don't understand what would cause one person to spend the gold on one, but not the other. So I see where the Devs were coming from with this comment.

@Emencie

If it's me I find account wide always as a better investment regardless of what it is.

Characters....pppssshhhh. I have deleted in the old game VR4, VR2 and VR1's so I'm very hesitant to invest a lot of non-refundable resources into anyone other than my main.

STEVIL · January 2017

Waseem wrote: »

they come up with this bull *** everytime they skip a core featurre
like really, they say eso have playerbase of millions.. we still spend 20 minutes to form a group for a pledge.
they should calculate for active accounts that has been logged atleast once last 3 months.
when they post such stupid statistics, they take into consideration EVERY account. including those of people who bought the game but probably dont have a character with a level over 3.

edit: i also have a *** alternative account to store items because there is no enough slots in my main account
and im already with 12 characters.

FWIW
the 50% figure was the one they specifically referenced as "of active players".
the 3% a few seconds later they only said "players".
They did not say "every account" for either.

if you have more info on that or their criteria, please post it.

i for instance would count as (i suspect) two active players, two accounts, One in the 3% one not, both not in the 50% never upgraded. So i would maybe show as 75% in favor of storage and 25% not.