Player Housing Player Caps

Titansteele · January 2017

MornaBaine wrote: »

There's no technical reason they should NOT have a 24 player cap as that is well within Zeni's capabilities.

I agree with everything you say with the exception of this. Unless you work for ZOS you do not know this. There should be no technical reason and if there is one it should be addressed and resolved but you have no way of knowing.

MornaBaine · January 2017

Agree, large houses should have a 24 player cap!

Titansteele wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

There's no technical reason they should NOT have a 24 player cap as that is well within Zeni's capabilities.

I agree with everything you say with the exception of this. Unless you work for ZOS you do not know this. There should be no technical reason and if there is one it should be addressed and resolved but you have no way of knowing.

While it is technically true that I don't know, it is extraordinarily unlikely that Zeni CANNOT make the Large houses have a 24 player cap. And if it's true that they CANNOT do it, they need to tell us that.

MornaBaine · January 2017

Agree, large houses should have a 24 player cap!

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

If your attempting to provide feedback on the PTS this is the wrong forum section.

I have donethat as well. The point of putting this here in General Discussion is the fact that MANY players don't read PTS and had no idea this was the situation.

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

If the capacity of large homes were increased to 24 them manors should be able to accommodate 48 players at one time. Maybe more wind they are a premium.

I agree. The manor homes are a terrible value for what they are asking for them. However, the excuse is that anything over 24 causes performance issues. So we're stuck with that unless and until Zeno decides to do something about it.

[/quote]
I see the current as ok since large homes get much more space than medium as it is and not that much more cost wise. [/quote]

The "space" within the home itself is not the main selling point though. The selling point is being able to have events, meetings, roleplay, in a space that is free from players except for those you actually want there. How Zeni failed to realize this is beyond me.

notimetocare · January 2017

Disagree, the current caps are fine!

MornaBaine wrote: »

Titansteele wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

There's no technical reason they should NOT have a 24 player cap as that is well within Zeni's capabilities.

I agree with everything you say with the exception of this. Unless you work for ZOS you do not know this. There should be no technical reason and if there is one it should be addressed and resolved but you have no way of knowing.

While it is technically true that I don't know, it is extraordinarily unlikely that Zeni CANNOT make the Large houses have a 24 player cap. And if it's true that they CANNOT do it, they need to tell us that.

Cheaper buildings, more instances, less per instance. Its a pretty basic concept.
I guarantee each housing instance could support as many people as a city can, what you are not accounting for is how many instances of the house there will be and the clutter or all the placed furniture in each one. It adds up.

Bladerunner1 · January 2017

Agree, large houses should have a 24 player cap!

notimetocare wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

Titansteele wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

There's no technical reason they should NOT have a 24 player cap as that is well within Zeni's capabilities.

I agree with everything you say with the exception of this. Unless you work for ZOS you do not know this. There should be no technical reason and if there is one it should be addressed and resolved but you have no way of knowing.

While it is technically true that I don't know, it is extraordinarily unlikely that Zeni CANNOT make the Large houses have a 24 player cap. And if it's true that they CANNOT do it, they need to tell us that.

Cheaper buildings, more instances, less per instance. Its a pretty basic concept.
I guarantee each housing instance could support as many people as a city can, what you are not accounting for is how many instances of the house there will be and the clutter or all the placed furniture in each one. It adds up.

The large houses aren't cheaper, far from it. You say cheaper buildings should have less resources devoted to them but did you read the OP? Here's a crown store example of two Altmer houses, an enormous house and a tiny house as they appear on the PTS:

When you purchase the fully furnished Matthisen Manor from the crown store it comes with 61,410 crowns worth of furniture.

When you purchase the fully furnished and tiny Cliffshade that doesn't have a yard, it comes with 13,830 crowns worth of furniture.

As ridiculous as all those prices sound, both places hold the same number of players. You're correct that furniture is clutter and takes resources, but that's where the money comes in to play.

They have a lot of crowns tied up in large houses, they could make 4-5 times as much money. But the player caps are the same!

notimetocare · January 2017

Disagree, the current caps are fine!

Bladerunner1 wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

Titansteele wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

There's no technical reason they should NOT have a 24 player cap as that is well within Zeni's capabilities.

I agree with everything you say with the exception of this. Unless you work for ZOS you do not know this. There should be no technical reason and if there is one it should be addressed and resolved but you have no way of knowing.

While it is technically true that I don't know, it is extraordinarily unlikely that Zeni CANNOT make the Large houses have a 24 player cap. And if it's true that they CANNOT do it, they need to tell us that.

Cheaper buildings, more instances, less per instance. Its a pretty basic concept.
I guarantee each housing instance could support as many people as a city can, what you are not accounting for is how many instances of the house there will be and the clutter or all the placed furniture in each one. It adds up.

The large houses aren't cheaper, far from it. You say cheaper buildings should have less resources devoted to them but did you read the OP? Here's a crown store example of two Altmer houses, an enormous house and a tiny house as they appear on the PTS:

When you purchase the fully furnished Matthisen Manor from the crown store it comes with 61,410 crowns worth of furniture.

When you purchase the fully furnished and tiny Cliffshade that doesn't have a yard, it comes with 13,830 crowns worth of furniture.

As ridiculous as all those prices sound, both places hold the same number of players. You're correct that furniture is clutter and takes resources, but that's where the money comes in to play.

They have a lot of crowns tied up in large houses, they could make 4-5 times as much money. But the player caps are the same!

Assumed crown cost is irrelevant compared to real numbers we are given for gold.

Bladerunner1 · January 2017

Agree, large houses should have a 24 player cap!

notimetocare wrote: »

Bladerunner1 wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

Titansteele wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

There's no technical reason they should NOT have a 24 player cap as that is well within Zeni's capabilities.

I agree with everything you say with the exception of this. Unless you work for ZOS you do not know this. There should be no technical reason and if there is one it should be addressed and resolved but you have no way of knowing.

While it is technically true that I don't know, it is extraordinarily unlikely that Zeni CANNOT make the Large houses have a 24 player cap. And if it's true that they CANNOT do it, they need to tell us that.

Cheaper buildings, more instances, less per instance. Its a pretty basic concept.
I guarantee each housing instance could support as many people as a city can, what you are not accounting for is how many instances of the house there will be and the clutter or all the placed furniture in each one. It adds up.

The large houses aren't cheaper, far from it. You say cheaper buildings should have less resources devoted to them but did you read the OP? Here's a crown store example of two Altmer houses, an enormous house and a tiny house as they appear on the PTS:

When you purchase the fully furnished Matthisen Manor from the crown store it comes with 61,410 crowns worth of furniture.

When you purchase the fully furnished and tiny Cliffshade that doesn't have a yard, it comes with 13,830 crowns worth of furniture.

As ridiculous as all those prices sound, both places hold the same number of players. You're correct that furniture is clutter and takes resources, but that's where the money comes in to play.

They have a lot of crowns tied up in large houses, they could make 4-5 times as much money. But the player caps are the same!

Assumed crown cost is irrelevant compared to real numbers we are given for gold.

Crowns have everything to do with this. That's how ZOS can make profit. But alright, here's the real numbers we're given for gold:

The large Altmer house is 4 times as much as the medium Altmer house. It has the same player caps, and holds 50% more furniture.

A medium house is 5 times the cost of a small, yet holds 100% more players and 100% more furniture.

bellatrixed · January 2017

Agree, large houses should have a 24 player cap!

bigmamajama wrote: »

I think you guys are over-estimating your in-game popularity and the desire for hordes of people to visit you. The numbers seem reasonable to me.

Nope... not overestimating anything.

I had 13 people RPing with me last night and nothing was going on event wise. Just 13 people gathered in what in Homestead terms is a large house.

Then event wise? Yeah, definitely not overestimating.

I could keep going, but suffice it to say the average RP gathering is 10-60 people. All of these screenshots had more than 12 people present for the events.

bellatrixed · January 2017

Agree, large houses should have a 24 player cap!

notimetocare wrote: »

As to RP, you need large instances because you cant handle a bit of trolling?

We need large instances because the RP community has been excited about housing since it was first announced January 2016. We need large instances because all the RP guilds I know have been planning for housing and saving up for the better part of that year, and are now incredibly discouraged after realizing they won't even be able to RP as a group in houses, so what's the point?

You don't have to like RP, but willfully ignoring the wants/needs of social/RP guilds in regards to housing, which is certainly the segment of the population that housing is tailored for due to its absolute lack of actual functionality, is a little nonsensical to me.

Cyrediath wrote: »

I dont think someone is social enough to fit 24 people at the same time in a house other than famous people or guild leaders.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding what RP is. It's not about people sitting in their house and waiting for people to pour in because they're famous, it's about guilds using them as RP hubs, it's about RP events being scheduled for a certain date/time in a certain house and a chunk of the community shows up.

It would be a little like me saying I don't think PVErs need any more dungeons because I haven't done all the existing ones yet.

notimetocare · January 2017

Disagree, the current caps are fine!

bellatrixed wrote: »

bigmamajama wrote: »

I think you guys are over-estimating your in-game popularity and the desire for hordes of people to visit you. The numbers seem reasonable to me.

Nope... not overestimating anything.

I had 13 people RPing with me last night and nothing was going on event wise. Just 13 people gathered in what in Homestead terms is a large house.

Then event wise? Yeah, definitely not overestimating.

I could keep going, but suffice it to say the average RP gathering is 10-60 people. All of these screenshots had more than 12 people present for the events.

Guess its time to trim down to the important people or just keep using the space you already do :P

Jokes aside, is this really the norm? Asking to raise caps because a group or two has large gatherings is a bit entitled isnt it? "Make the caps larger for us even though it could cause lag for our instance or others?"

ArcVelarian · January 2017

Agree, large houses should have a 24 player cap!

While we're at it, how about lowering housing prices to something sane. Prices should range from 1.5k to 500k. As is, the prices are ridiculous for what we get.

notimetocare · January 2017

Disagree, the current caps are fine!

bellatrixed wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

As to RP, you need large instances because you cant handle a bit of trolling?

We need large instances because the RP community has been excited about housing since it was first announced January 2016. We need large instances because all the RP guilds I know have been planning for housing and saving up for the better part of that year, and are now incredibly discouraged after realizing they won't even be able to RP as a group in houses, so what's the point?

You don't have to like RP, but willfully ignoring the wants/needs of social/RP guilds in regards to housing, which is certainly the segment of the population that housing is tailored for due to its absolute lack of actual functionality, is a little nonsensical to me.

Cyrediath wrote: »

I dont think someone is social enough to fit 24 people at the same time in a house other than famous people or guild leaders.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding what RP is. It's not about people sitting in their house and waiting for people to pour in because they're famous, it's about guilds using them as RP hubs, it's about RP events being scheduled for a certain date/time in a certain house and a chunk of the community shows up.

It would be a little like me saying I don't think PVErs need any more dungeons because I haven't done all the existing ones yet.

I participate in and enjoy RP (aside from the one-handed erp that vampire rp seems to be inundated with).

Capping instances for performance issues is ignoring your wants and needs? It was advertised as player housing, not guild housing. This wasn't a dead giveaway?

Limited groups =/= Unable to RP as a group

Serjustin19 · January 2017

Other, and I would like a sweetroll for my poll participation!

In my opinion houses should be more player caps. Meaning from APT, to Small, Meadium, Large, and Manor all should be changed no offense for example.

1. (Surprised not listed in here) APT: Should hold 6 players

2. Since for example APT is 6 players (least it should) But small currently hold 12. Add 6 from APT. So 12+6=18 So the new cap of players should be 18 players for housing cap. In my opinion.

3. So APT is 6 players, to small is 18 players. Lets do medium houses. Since originally both small and medium. Both have 12 players at caps originally. So let do the same. However with some change. Since my new example for small is 18. Lets add. 18+6=24. So the new player cap should be 24 for medium home.

4. Since manor and large homes should be in different categories. Surprised ZOS not made it so. It should in my opinion. So since my exaple for medium home is 24 player cap. Let's do the same for my large home. So 24+6= 30. So the new cap for large home should be 30 players for new cap.

5. Now since manor should be. Well a manor. Manor should add double from the amount of large home which is 30 in my new example. So add 30 from large home to 12 for manor. For example. 30+12= 42. So Manor should be 42 player caps. Not less.

So in other words of my new example of my new total. Player caps in houses. Should be raised to

1. APT= 6 players. 2. Small= 18 players. 3. Medium= 24 players. 4. Large= 30 players. 5. Manor= 42 players

I really like my new examples for player caps. Instead of the original that ZOS originally wanted. No offense. However I understand on why the original caps are there as well.

Bladerunner1 · January 2017

Agree, large houses should have a 24 player cap!

notimetocare wrote: »

bellatrixed wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

As to RP, you need large instances because you cant handle a bit of trolling?

We need large instances because the RP community has been excited about housing since it was first announced January 2016. We need large instances because all the RP guilds I know have been planning for housing and saving up for the better part of that year, and are now incredibly discouraged after realizing they won't even be able to RP as a group in houses, so what's the point?

You don't have to like RP, but willfully ignoring the wants/needs of social/RP guilds in regards to housing, which is certainly the segment of the population that housing is tailored for due to its absolute lack of actual functionality, is a little nonsensical to me.

Cyrediath wrote: »

I dont think someone is social enough to fit 24 people at the same time in a house other than famous people or guild leaders.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding what RP is. It's not about people sitting in their house and waiting for people to pour in because they're famous, it's about guilds using them as RP hubs, it's about RP events being scheduled for a certain date/time in a certain house and a chunk of the community shows up.

It would be a little like me saying I don't think PVErs need any more dungeons because I haven't done all the existing ones yet.

I participate in and enjoy RP (aside from the one-handed erp that vampire rp seems to be inundated with).

Capping instances for performance issues is ignoring your wants and needs? It was advertised as player housing, not guild housing. This wasn't a dead giveaway?

Limited groups =/= Unable to RP as a group

Before you push further towards getting this thread locked, I'd like to chime in once more.

The devs haven't responded about why large homes are capped at 12 and manors are at 24. Everyone assuming performance issues is speculating now.

The devoted resources per crown/gold argument that large houses should stay capped at 12 doesn't make any sense. Looking at it from a purely monetary perspective, medium houses are far cheaper and have the same cap.

Labelling people who voice their opinion about the cap as "entitled" is another fallacy. We're their customers.

There are currently 9 large houses on the market that aren't looking very tempting as potential RP hotspots and that's sad because the homestead release is geared towards RPers.

Ruthven · January 2017

Agree, large houses should have a 24 player cap!

Krainor1974 wrote: »

I say:
Small - 6
Med- 12
Large - 24
Manors - 48

This breakdown.

As for coin.. Jesus.. They aren't cheap!

bellatrixed · January 2017

Agree, large houses should have a 24 player cap!

notimetocare wrote: »

Jokes aside, is this really the norm? Asking to raise caps because a group or two has large gatherings is a bit entitled isnt it? "Make the caps larger for us even though it could cause lag for our instance or others?"

It's not a group or two. It's a huge chunk of the community.

What you're not realizing is this isn't about "my guild is so awesome and huge", it's about "RPers in every game to ever have housing make housing specifically tailored to being RP hubs where anyone can drop in if they know the date/time/location and we're being prevented from doing it even though every other game with housing lets us."

This isn't about a couple people with egos bragging they have people to RP with. It's about the fact this is the NORM for games with housing.

And regardless of if you'll personally ever hit that cap, I don't understand the point of shaming people for asking for it.

Those screenshots I posted were mostly from community events involving players from 5-7 guilds. For months we've been excitedly planning which houses to get for our events... and now we're stuck using the open world still. Which is a loss of revenue for ZOS.

Morimizo · January 2017

Other, and I would like a sweetroll for my poll participation!

How can I have Rave Parties where I cram at least a 100 folks in each room of my home with these caps!!!

There are neighbors to annoy and fire marshals to frustrate!

Say No to Caps at all!!!

Ruthven · January 2017

Agree, large houses should have a 24 player cap!

bellatrixed wrote: »

bigmamajama wrote: »

I think you guys are over-estimating your in-game popularity and the desire for hordes of people to visit you. The numbers seem reasonable to me.

Nope... not overestimating anything.

I had 13 people RPing with me last night and nothing was going on event wise. Just 13 people gathered in what in Homestead terms is a large house.

Then event wise? Yeah, definitely not overestimating.

I could keep going, but suffice it to say the average RP gathering is 10-60 people. All of these screenshots had more than 12 people present for the events.

Man.. I wish I could find some people to RP with on the PS4.

notimetocare · January 2017

Disagree, the current caps are fine!

bellatrixed wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

Jokes aside, is this really the norm? Asking to raise caps because a group or two has large gatherings is a bit entitled isnt it? "Make the caps larger for us even though it could cause lag for our instance or others?"

It's not a group or two. It's a huge chunk of the community.

What you're not realizing is this isn't about "my guild is so awesome and huge", it's about "RPers in every game to ever have housing make housing specifically tailored to being RP hubs where anyone can drop in if they know the date/time/location and we're being prevented from doing it even though every other game with housing lets us."

This isn't about a couple people with egos bragging they have people to RP with. It's about the fact this is the NORM for games with housing.

And regardless of if you'll personally ever hit that cap, I don't understand the point of shaming people for asking for it.

Those screenshots I posted were mostly from community events involving players from 5-7 guilds. For months we've been excitedly planning which houses to get for our events... and now we're stuck using the open world still. Which is a loss of revenue for ZOS.

Probably little to no lost revenue, I anticipate most of the guilds you speak of still buying stuff.

Reread your post, as much as you say it isnt bragging that is all you did.

They are not preventing anything. Limiting? Sure, but I have watched many groups RP and it is rarely more than 6-10. The majority of people will barely notice the cap.

notimetocare · January 2017

Disagree, the current caps are fine!

Bladerunner1 wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

bellatrixed wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

As to RP, you need large instances because you cant handle a bit of trolling?

We need large instances because the RP community has been excited about housing since it was first announced January 2016. We need large instances because all the RP guilds I know have been planning for housing and saving up for the better part of that year, and are now incredibly discouraged after realizing they won't even be able to RP as a group in houses, so what's the point?

You don't have to like RP, but willfully ignoring the wants/needs of social/RP guilds in regards to housing, which is certainly the segment of the population that housing is tailored for due to its absolute lack of actual functionality, is a little nonsensical to me.

Cyrediath wrote: »

I dont think someone is social enough to fit 24 people at the same time in a house other than famous people or guild leaders.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding what RP is. It's not about people sitting in their house and waiting for people to pour in because they're famous, it's about guilds using them as RP hubs, it's about RP events being scheduled for a certain date/time in a certain house and a chunk of the community shows up.

It would be a little like me saying I don't think PVErs need any more dungeons because I haven't done all the existing ones yet.

I participate in and enjoy RP (aside from the one-handed erp that vampire rp seems to be inundated with).

Capping instances for performance issues is ignoring your wants and needs? It was advertised as player housing, not guild housing. This wasn't a dead giveaway?

Limited groups =/= Unable to RP as a group

Before you push further towards getting this thread locked, I'd like to chime in once more.

The devs haven't responded about why large homes are capped at 12 and manors are at 24. Everyone assuming performance issues is speculating now.

The devoted resources per crown/gold argument that large houses should stay capped at 12 doesn't make any sense. Looking at it from a purely monetary perspective, medium houses are far cheaper and have the same cap.

Labelling people who voice their opinion about the cap as "entitled" is another fallacy. We're their customers.

There are currently 9 large houses on the market that aren't looking very tempting as potential RP hotspots and that's sad because the homestead release is geared towards RPers.

Pointing out what I see is not pushing for a thread to be locked. Unless pointing things out is offending you because its true?

Difference in cost between medium:large and large:manor is incredible. Pretty easy to see that the devs would not condier the player cap worth differentiating.

No, it is a fact. The difference is whether you think entitled is bad or not.

Homestead is intended to appeal to everyone, not simply RPers.

It may be speculation as to 'why' the cap is to performance issues, but it is ignorant to claim that the devs haven't responded because the community managers in most cases speak to us on behalf of the devs

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en-GB/discussion/312051/feedback-24-player-cap-for-housing-is-far-too-small/p1

Wrecking_Blow_Spam · January 2017

Other, and I would like a sweetroll for my poll participation!

Don't care, the novelty will wear off houses for most apart from the role players, others will be bored of sat all alone doing nothing.

If storage was added and bound to the house well that'd be a sure fire way to make sure people regularly visit their homes.

bellatrixed · January 2017

Agree, large houses should have a 24 player cap!

Wrecking_Blow_Spam wrote: »

Don't care, the novelty will wear off houses for most apart from the role players, others will be bored of sat all alone doing nothing.

This is actually true... which is why it's totally nonsensical for RPers concerns (namely the limitations imposed by such a tiny player cap) to be brushed off.

Since it has no practical game functionality it's specifically tailored towards people who want to use it as a social function. Usually that means guilds... and usually that means more than 12-24 people.

notimetocare wrote: »

Probably little to no lost revenue, I anticipate most of the guilds you speak of still buying stuff.

Reread your post, as much as you say it isnt bragging that is all you did.

They are not preventing anything. Limiting? Sure, but I have watched many groups RP and it is rarely more than 6-10. The majority of people will barely notice the cap.

They'll buy "stuff" sure, but not as much as they would if it was the housing system we wanted.

There's no bragging in my post, simply proof to the claim that "nobody will hit the cap unless they're famous." I'm certainly not famous and my events have had more than 12-24 people on a regular basis. No brag there, simple facts.

They are most certainly preventing people from using housing for events. I think your view of the majority is skewed. Most people RP to be social and that means they interact with more than 6-10 people. Not EVERY time, but for events, yes. And in every other game with housing, housing is for events.

Bladerunner1 · January 2017

Agree, large houses should have a 24 player cap!

notimetocare wrote: »

Bladerunner1 wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

bellatrixed wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

As to RP, you need large instances because you cant handle a bit of trolling?

We need large instances because the RP community has been excited about housing since it was first announced January 2016. We need large instances because all the RP guilds I know have been planning for housing and saving up for the better part of that year, and are now incredibly discouraged after realizing they won't even be able to RP as a group in houses, so what's the point?

You don't have to like RP, but willfully ignoring the wants/needs of social/RP guilds in regards to housing, which is certainly the segment of the population that housing is tailored for due to its absolute lack of actual functionality, is a little nonsensical to me.

Cyrediath wrote: »

I dont think someone is social enough to fit 24 people at the same time in a house other than famous people or guild leaders.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding what RP is. It's not about people sitting in their house and waiting for people to pour in because they're famous, it's about guilds using them as RP hubs, it's about RP events being scheduled for a certain date/time in a certain house and a chunk of the community shows up.

It would be a little like me saying I don't think PVErs need any more dungeons because I haven't done all the existing ones yet.

I participate in and enjoy RP (aside from the one-handed erp that vampire rp seems to be inundated with).

Capping instances for performance issues is ignoring your wants and needs? It was advertised as player housing, not guild housing. This wasn't a dead giveaway?

Limited groups =/= Unable to RP as a group

Before you push further towards getting this thread locked, I'd like to chime in once more.

The devs haven't responded about why large homes are capped at 12 and manors are at 24. Everyone assuming performance issues is speculating now.

The devoted resources per crown/gold argument that large houses should stay capped at 12 doesn't make any sense. Looking at it from a purely monetary perspective, medium houses are far cheaper and have the same cap.

Labelling people who voice their opinion about the cap as "entitled" is another fallacy. We're their customers.

There are currently 9 large houses on the market that aren't looking very tempting as potential RP hotspots and that's sad because the homestead release is geared towards RPers.

Pointing out what I see is not pushing for a thread to be locked. Unless pointing things out is offending you because its true?

Difference in cost between medium:large and large:manor is incredible. Pretty easy to see that the devs would not condier the player cap worth differentiating.

No, it is a fact. The difference is whether you think entitled is bad or not.

Homestead is intended to appeal to everyone, not simply RPers.

It may be speculation as to 'why' the cap is to performance issues, but it is ignorant to claim that the devs haven't responded because the community managers in most cases speak to us on behalf of the devs

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en-GB/discussion/312051/feedback-24-player-cap-for-housing-is-far-too-small/p1

The difference in cost between large house and manor is far from incredible. The crown costs of houses were released on ESO Live.

Once more, here's the comparison of Aldmeri Dominion options as they appear on the PTS:

Medium Altmer - house costs 5,000-6,500 + 13,830 crown value of optional bundled furniture
Large Altmer - 7,500 - 8,500 + 61,410 crown value of optional bundled furniture
Khajiit Manor - 10,000 + 30,010 crown value on optional bundled furniture.

Their earning potential is tied to the furniture more than anything. The combined crown value on the manor is less but holds more people, and yes I'm comparing crown values because in-game gold doesn't translate into profits. Homestead appeals mostly to RPers, and those who spend most of their time RPing don't typically have millions of gold to spend, but many do buy crowns when they see something they want.

The 3 manors with a 24 player cap don't fit the tastes of most RPers. 75% of the biggest properties are capped too low at 12, that's an opinion a majority of us "entitled" customers share judging by the poll and responses. The response from ZOS about the caps have been generic replies about performance. We still don't know why large houses are capped at 12 whereas manors can hold 24, but it's clearly not because of an incredible difference in crowns.

MornaBaine · January 2017

Agree, large houses should have a 24 player cap!

Bladerunner1 wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

Bladerunner1 wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

bellatrixed wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

As to RP, you need large instances because you cant handle a bit of trolling?

We need large instances because the RP community has been excited about housing since it was first announced January 2016. We need large instances because all the RP guilds I know have been planning for housing and saving up for the better part of that year, and are now incredibly discouraged after realizing they won't even be able to RP as a group in houses, so what's the point?

You don't have to like RP, but willfully ignoring the wants/needs of social/RP guilds in regards to housing, which is certainly the segment of the population that housing is tailored for due to its absolute lack of actual functionality, is a little nonsensical to me.

Cyrediath wrote: »

I dont think someone is social enough to fit 24 people at the same time in a house other than famous people or guild leaders.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding what RP is. It's not about people sitting in their house and waiting for people to pour in because they're famous, it's about guilds using them as RP hubs, it's about RP events being scheduled for a certain date/time in a certain house and a chunk of the community shows up.

It would be a little like me saying I don't think PVErs need any more dungeons because I haven't done all the existing ones yet.

I participate in and enjoy RP (aside from the one-handed erp that vampire rp seems to be inundated with).

Capping instances for performance issues is ignoring your wants and needs? It was advertised as player housing, not guild housing. This wasn't a dead giveaway?

Limited groups =/= Unable to RP as a group

Before you push further towards getting this thread locked, I'd like to chime in once more.

The devs haven't responded about why large homes are capped at 12 and manors are at 24. Everyone assuming performance issues is speculating now.

The devoted resources per crown/gold argument that large houses should stay capped at 12 doesn't make any sense. Looking at it from a purely monetary perspective, medium houses are far cheaper and have the same cap.

Labelling people who voice their opinion about the cap as "entitled" is another fallacy. We're their customers.

There are currently 9 large houses on the market that aren't looking very tempting as potential RP hotspots and that's sad because the homestead release is geared towards RPers.

Pointing out what I see is not pushing for a thread to be locked. Unless pointing things out is offending you because its true?

Difference in cost between medium:large and large:manor is incredible. Pretty easy to see that the devs would not condier the player cap worth differentiating.

No, it is a fact. The difference is whether you think entitled is bad or not.

Homestead is intended to appeal to everyone, not simply RPers.

It may be speculation as to 'why' the cap is to performance issues, but it is ignorant to claim that the devs haven't responded because the community managers in most cases speak to us on behalf of the devs

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en-GB/discussion/312051/feedback-24-player-cap-for-housing-is-far-too-small/p1

The difference in cost between large house and manor is far from incredible. The crown costs of houses were released on ESO Live.

Once more, here's the comparison of Aldmeri Dominion options as they appear on the PTS:

Medium Altmer - house costs 5,000-6,500 + 13,830 crown value of optional bundled furniture
Large Altmer - 7,500 - 8,500 + 61,410 crown value of optional bundled furniture
Khajiit Manor - 10,000 + 30,010 crown value on optional bundled furniture.

Their earning potential is tied to the furniture more than anything. The combined crown value on the manor is less but holds more people, and yes I'm comparing crown values because in-game gold doesn't translate into profits. Homestead appeals mostly to RPers, and those who spend most of their time RPing don't typically have millions of gold to spend, but many do buy crowns when they see something they want.

The 3 manors with a 24 player cap don't fit the tastes of most RPers. 75% of the biggest properties are capped too low at 12, that's an opinion a majority of us "entitled" customers share judging by the poll and responses. The response from ZOS about the caps have been generic replies about performance. We still don't know why large houses are capped at 12 whereas manors can hold 24, but it's clearly not because of an incredible difference in crowns.

Exactly. And honestly, most of us understand that ALL of the houses COULD hold 24 players. The choice to have them hold less is deliberate and was made to make the most expensive properties the most attractive. And I would have agreed with this IF any thought or care or creativity had been put into the houses themselves. Instead all efforts went into the furniture crafting system and they just stuck us with boring and generic copies of buildings that already exist in the game. That was honestly the worst letdown.

Theosis · January 2017

Other, and I would like a sweetroll for my poll participation!

I think the caps are ridiculously low on all accounts. I respect the need for resources to be limited but...

Player housing has been done wrong. Scrap it and start over.. Have people who actively play the game make some choices.

Rant over.. Honestly though some of these choices are crazy. Limits this low.. I hope they add guild castles as a realistic choice.

notimetocare · January 2017

Disagree, the current caps are fine!

Bladerunner1 wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

Bladerunner1 wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

bellatrixed wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

As to RP, you need large instances because you cant handle a bit of trolling?

We need large instances because the RP community has been excited about housing since it was first announced January 2016. We need large instances because all the RP guilds I know have been planning for housing and saving up for the better part of that year, and are now incredibly discouraged after realizing they won't even be able to RP as a group in houses, so what's the point?

You don't have to like RP, but willfully ignoring the wants/needs of social/RP guilds in regards to housing, which is certainly the segment of the population that housing is tailored for due to its absolute lack of actual functionality, is a little nonsensical to me.

Cyrediath wrote: »

I dont think someone is social enough to fit 24 people at the same time in a house other than famous people or guild leaders.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding what RP is. It's not about people sitting in their house and waiting for people to pour in because they're famous, it's about guilds using them as RP hubs, it's about RP events being scheduled for a certain date/time in a certain house and a chunk of the community shows up.

It would be a little like me saying I don't think PVErs need any more dungeons because I haven't done all the existing ones yet.

I participate in and enjoy RP (aside from the one-handed erp that vampire rp seems to be inundated with).

Capping instances for performance issues is ignoring your wants and needs? It was advertised as player housing, not guild housing. This wasn't a dead giveaway?

Limited groups =/= Unable to RP as a group

Before you push further towards getting this thread locked, I'd like to chime in once more.

The devs haven't responded about why large homes are capped at 12 and manors are at 24. Everyone assuming performance issues is speculating now.

The devoted resources per crown/gold argument that large houses should stay capped at 12 doesn't make any sense. Looking at it from a purely monetary perspective, medium houses are far cheaper and have the same cap.

Labelling people who voice their opinion about the cap as "entitled" is another fallacy. We're their customers.

There are currently 9 large houses on the market that aren't looking very tempting as potential RP hotspots and that's sad because the homestead release is geared towards RPers.

Pointing out what I see is not pushing for a thread to be locked. Unless pointing things out is offending you because its true?

Difference in cost between medium:large and large:manor is incredible. Pretty easy to see that the devs would not condier the player cap worth differentiating.

No, it is a fact. The difference is whether you think entitled is bad or not.

Homestead is intended to appeal to everyone, not simply RPers.

It may be speculation as to 'why' the cap is to performance issues, but it is ignorant to claim that the devs haven't responded because the community managers in most cases speak to us on behalf of the devs

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en-GB/discussion/312051/feedback-24-player-cap-for-housing-is-far-too-small/p1

The difference in cost between large house and manor is far from incredible. The crown costs of houses were released on ESO Live.

Once more, here's the comparison of Aldmeri Dominion options as they appear on the PTS:

Medium Altmer - house costs 5,000-6,500 + 13,830 crown value of optional bundled furniture
Large Altmer - 7,500 - 8,500 + 61,410 crown value of optional bundled furniture
Khajiit Manor - 10,000 + 30,010 crown value on optional bundled furniture.

Their earning potential is tied to the furniture more than anything. The combined crown value on the manor is less but holds more people, and yes I'm comparing crown values because in-game gold doesn't translate into profits. Homestead appeals mostly to RPers, and those who spend most of their time RPing don't typically have millions of gold to spend, but many do buy crowns when they see something they want.

The 3 manors with a 24 player cap don't fit the tastes of most RPers. 75% of the biggest properties are capped too low at 12, that's an opinion a majority of us "entitled" customers share judging by the poll and responses. The response from ZOS about the caps have been generic replies about performance. We still don't know why large houses are capped at 12 whereas manors can hold 24, but it's clearly not because of an incredible difference in crowns.

My comment on cost was not about crowns, and was made before crown announcement. And the assumed crown values are still meaningless.

Caps are likely made off gold costs, crown costs dont matter as much because they cant really create a realistic crown cost scale (if we assume accuracy of the assumed crown values). Most people wont buy houses with crowns because that much gold is stupid easy to make (yes, even the manors)

MornaBaine · January 2017

Agree, large houses should have a 24 player cap!

notimetocare wrote: »

Bladerunner1 wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

Bladerunner1 wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

bellatrixed wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

As to RP, you need large instances because you cant handle a bit of trolling?

We need large instances because the RP community has been excited about housing since it was first announced January 2016. We need large instances because all the RP guilds I know have been planning for housing and saving up for the better part of that year, and are now incredibly discouraged after realizing they won't even be able to RP as a group in houses, so what's the point?

You don't have to like RP, but willfully ignoring the wants/needs of social/RP guilds in regards to housing, which is certainly the segment of the population that housing is tailored for due to its absolute lack of actual functionality, is a little nonsensical to me.

Cyrediath wrote: »

I dont think someone is social enough to fit 24 people at the same time in a house other than famous people or guild leaders.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding what RP is. It's not about people sitting in their house and waiting for people to pour in because they're famous, it's about guilds using them as RP hubs, it's about RP events being scheduled for a certain date/time in a certain house and a chunk of the community shows up.

It would be a little like me saying I don't think PVErs need any more dungeons because I haven't done all the existing ones yet.

I participate in and enjoy RP (aside from the one-handed erp that vampire rp seems to be inundated with).

Capping instances for performance issues is ignoring your wants and needs? It was advertised as player housing, not guild housing. This wasn't a dead giveaway?

Limited groups =/= Unable to RP as a group

Before you push further towards getting this thread locked, I'd like to chime in once more.

The devs haven't responded about why large homes are capped at 12 and manors are at 24. Everyone assuming performance issues is speculating now.

The devoted resources per crown/gold argument that large houses should stay capped at 12 doesn't make any sense. Looking at it from a purely monetary perspective, medium houses are far cheaper and have the same cap.

Labelling people who voice their opinion about the cap as "entitled" is another fallacy. We're their customers.

There are currently 9 large houses on the market that aren't looking very tempting as potential RP hotspots and that's sad because the homestead release is geared towards RPers.

Pointing out what I see is not pushing for a thread to be locked. Unless pointing things out is offending you because its true?

Difference in cost between medium:large and large:manor is incredible. Pretty easy to see that the devs would not condier the player cap worth differentiating.

No, it is a fact. The difference is whether you think entitled is bad or not.

Homestead is intended to appeal to everyone, not simply RPers.

It may be speculation as to 'why' the cap is to performance issues, but it is ignorant to claim that the devs haven't responded because the community managers in most cases speak to us on behalf of the devs

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en-GB/discussion/312051/feedback-24-player-cap-for-housing-is-far-too-small/p1

The difference in cost between large house and manor is far from incredible. The crown costs of houses were released on ESO Live.

Once more, here's the comparison of Aldmeri Dominion options as they appear on the PTS:

Medium Altmer - house costs 5,000-6,500 + 13,830 crown value of optional bundled furniture
Large Altmer - 7,500 - 8,500 + 61,410 crown value of optional bundled furniture
Khajiit Manor - 10,000 + 30,010 crown value on optional bundled furniture.

Their earning potential is tied to the furniture more than anything. The combined crown value on the manor is less but holds more people, and yes I'm comparing crown values because in-game gold doesn't translate into profits. Homestead appeals mostly to RPers, and those who spend most of their time RPing don't typically have millions of gold to spend, but many do buy crowns when they see something they want.

The 3 manors with a 24 player cap don't fit the tastes of most RPers. 75% of the biggest properties are capped too low at 12, that's an opinion a majority of us "entitled" customers share judging by the poll and responses. The response from ZOS about the caps have been generic replies about performance. We still don't know why large houses are capped at 12 whereas manors can hold 24, but it's clearly not because of an incredible difference in crowns.

Caps are likely made off gold costs,...

What does that actually mean?

kwisatz · January 2017

Other, and I would like a sweetroll for my poll participation!

I think it's just fine to bring your group visiting your house; worked that way, for example, our Museum back in GW1... but we had Guild Halls.

So, IF they intend to give us Guild Halls, with all the features, mechanics and capacity we can expect, I'm ok with housing cap.
But if we have no choice but using Homestead for create something like it, then visitors cap is not enough, by far.

Taylor_MB · January 2017

Other, and I would like a sweetroll for my poll participation!

Why even have a limit? Pointless.

notimetocare · January 2017

Disagree, the current caps are fine!

MornaBaine wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

Bladerunner1 wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

Bladerunner1 wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

bellatrixed wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

As to RP, you need large instances because you cant handle a bit of trolling?

We need large instances because the RP community has been excited about housing since it was first announced January 2016. We need large instances because all the RP guilds I know have been planning for housing and saving up for the better part of that year, and are now incredibly discouraged after realizing they won't even be able to RP as a group in houses, so what's the point?

You don't have to like RP, but willfully ignoring the wants/needs of social/RP guilds in regards to housing, which is certainly the segment of the population that housing is tailored for due to its absolute lack of actual functionality, is a little nonsensical to me.

Cyrediath wrote: »

I dont think someone is social enough to fit 24 people at the same time in a house other than famous people or guild leaders.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding what RP is. It's not about people sitting in their house and waiting for people to pour in because they're famous, it's about guilds using them as RP hubs, it's about RP events being scheduled for a certain date/time in a certain house and a chunk of the community shows up.

It would be a little like me saying I don't think PVErs need any more dungeons because I haven't done all the existing ones yet.

I participate in and enjoy RP (aside from the one-handed erp that vampire rp seems to be inundated with).

Capping instances for performance issues is ignoring your wants and needs? It was advertised as player housing, not guild housing. This wasn't a dead giveaway?

Limited groups =/= Unable to RP as a group

Before you push further towards getting this thread locked, I'd like to chime in once more.

The devs haven't responded about why large homes are capped at 12 and manors are at 24. Everyone assuming performance issues is speculating now.

The devoted resources per crown/gold argument that large houses should stay capped at 12 doesn't make any sense. Looking at it from a purely monetary perspective, medium houses are far cheaper and have the same cap.

Labelling people who voice their opinion about the cap as "entitled" is another fallacy. We're their customers.

There are currently 9 large houses on the market that aren't looking very tempting as potential RP hotspots and that's sad because the homestead release is geared towards RPers.

Pointing out what I see is not pushing for a thread to be locked. Unless pointing things out is offending you because its true?

Difference in cost between medium:large and large:manor is incredible. Pretty easy to see that the devs would not condier the player cap worth differentiating.

No, it is a fact. The difference is whether you think entitled is bad or not.

Homestead is intended to appeal to everyone, not simply RPers.

It may be speculation as to 'why' the cap is to performance issues, but it is ignorant to claim that the devs haven't responded because the community managers in most cases speak to us on behalf of the devs

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en-GB/discussion/312051/feedback-24-player-cap-for-housing-is-far-too-small/p1

The difference in cost between large house and manor is far from incredible. The crown costs of houses were released on ESO Live.

Once more, here's the comparison of Aldmeri Dominion options as they appear on the PTS:

Medium Altmer - house costs 5,000-6,500 + 13,830 crown value of optional bundled furniture
Large Altmer - 7,500 - 8,500 + 61,410 crown value of optional bundled furniture
Khajiit Manor - 10,000 + 30,010 crown value on optional bundled furniture.

Their earning potential is tied to the furniture more than anything. The combined crown value on the manor is less but holds more people, and yes I'm comparing crown values because in-game gold doesn't translate into profits. Homestead appeals mostly to RPers, and those who spend most of their time RPing don't typically have millions of gold to spend, but many do buy crowns when they see something they want.

The 3 manors with a 24 player cap don't fit the tastes of most RPers. 75% of the biggest properties are capped too low at 12, that's an opinion a majority of us "entitled" customers share judging by the poll and responses. The response from ZOS about the caps have been generic replies about performance. We still don't know why large houses are capped at 12 whereas manors can hold 24, but it's clearly not because of an incredible difference in crowns.

Caps are likely made off gold costs,...

What does that actually mean?

I know it is a very complex idea so ill be clear for you: player caps are likely based off the gold cost of each house because only a fool would spend crowns when gold is so easy to make.