Sanguinor2 wrote: »

Ravensilver wrote: »

We have an 'optional' vet zone: Craglorn.

But it's not so 'optional', is it? Just like Cyrodiil isn't really optional, if you want certain achievements, for example. Let's take skyshards. If you want the achievement (because you would like to be able to buy the skyshard for your house, for example), you *must* pick up the ones in Cyrodiil. Whether you want to do PvP or not (I'm of the *DECIDEDLY NOT* faction).
Same with Craglorn.
Or the fishing achievement. Same thing. You have to do Craglorn and Cyrodiil (and I'm still missing a fish from there).

So the 'optional' version isn't really optional at all.

Discussed this in another thread ad nauseam:
Getting achievements is in itself optional. Wanting to complete everything is optional. Getting every skyshards is, you guessed it, optional. Getting every fish, surpise, optional.
The conclusion: An optional difficulty vet zone would be just that, optional, no matter the rewards it would or would not give.
You wanting them doesnt make them any less optional.

If you gonna use optional that loosely then there is no reason to change anything. No point wasting developer time for something optional.

Or maybe we shouldn’t be using it in a definition to exclude everything but food water and shelter, and instead use it the way normal humans use it when describing stuff like video games. Essential to a playstyle. In which, case no that content isn't optional for everyone and many WILL do content they do not enjoy to get things that are essential to their playstyle.

Ysbriel wrote: »

Well, there’s a post that date about two or three months back where people were crying about harrowstorms being to hard. Hard, group oriented content should definitely be added as the new contents roll in, but keep in mind that there is a lot of mixed signals being thrown at the development team pertaining to the difficulty of content in this game.

I made that thread and they seem to have listened. And Harrowstorms have been revitalized now that they are beatable alone. They nerfed the ghost spawns and seemed to have also lowered the odds of a shrike. They are still tougher content but now doable with even a small amount of casuals or me by myself. And now I no longer have trouble Harrowstorm farming.

I don't consider it whining to point out that content isn't being done the way it's intended. But to each their own.

I am happy with the nerfs, it's great. Completely revitalized the content.

Mik195 wrote: »

No, I don't want harder content. If I want to spend my time frustrated, I'll try to talk to my boss. I like overland so that I can wander around, harvest nodes and let the bear handle the mobs. The game for me is an escape from to do lists and I don't want to have to pay attention in overland.

If I want a challenge, I'll do a dungeon or deep clean my house or finish one of the work projects that need to be done if I want any time off at Christmas, or cook real food for once, or so many other things. The game is an escape and I really don't need any more stress. I like that I can choose what type of difficulty I want.

No problem.

If there was an optional veteran zone for overland content (the same way there already is for dungeons) then you could simply stay in the regular zones to do quests in if you don't want to have to pay attention. And those of us who would like a decent challenge while questing/exploring we can move on to the Veteran Zones.

Everyone wins.

Sylvermynx wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

If there was an optional veteran zone for overland content (the same way there already is for dungeons) then you could simply stay in the regular zones to do quests in if you don't want to have to pay attention. And those of us who would like a decent challenge while questing/exploring we can move on to the Veteran Zones.

Everyone wins.

Everyone loses, because this would separate the playerbase into two separate worlds. They may as well make a completely new game because that is basically what this would do.

Entirely true. That's just not a "fix" - it's another implementation of a "new problem".

Caveat: I really enjoy an MMO - lots of activity, world isn't static, plenty of people (not NPCs - PLAYER people) in game. But when you start fragmenting those players into "special" areas, it really does cause issues.

The game is already split up into instances so what you are describing has already happened. So if you can enjoy the game now you could still enjoy the game after Veteran zones were added. There would literally be no difference except that one of the instances would have enemies scaled to 810 instead of 160. The end of the game would not happen. Just like the end of the game did not happen when they added Veteran Dungeons.

The only difference would be veteran players who like a decent challenge would actually be able to enjoy the overland content again.

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

And this game is already split up into different "worlds" or instances.

All the instances are the same difficulty, and you can easily travel between them by traveling to another player. This would not happen between normal and veteran zones. The two would remain separate in every aspect.

You could still easily travel between them. So I don't understand your point. The only difference would be in one of the instances enemies would be scaled to 810 instead of 160. It would be exactly the same way it is now - only that veteran players would actually be able to enjoy a decent challenge while questing/exploring.

If you're worried about Veteran players not being around as much to help you with World Bosses, all they would have to do is include a grouping tool for players to ask for assistance that can viewed across all instances. Which needs to be done anyway - because even without Veteran Zones for experienced players to play in people still struggle to find help with older content. So that's a problem regardless and really has nothing to do with the inclusion of these Vet Zones.

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

And this game is already split up into different "worlds" or instances.

All the instances are the same difficulty, and you can easily travel between them by traveling to another player. This would not happen between normal and veteran zones. The two would remain separate in every aspect.

You could still easily travel between them. So I don't understand your point. The only difference would be in one of the instances enemies would be scaled to 810 instead of 160. It would be exactly the same way it is now - only that veteran players would actually be able to enjoy a decent challenge while questing/exploring.

If you're worried about Veteran players not being around as much to help you with World Bosses, all they would have to do is include a grouping tool for players to ask for assistance that can viewed across all instances. Which needs to be done anyway - because even without Veteran Zones for experienced players to play in people still struggle to find help with older content. So that's a problem regardless and really has nothing to do with the inclusion of these Vet Zones.

There is a big difference between CP 160 and CP 810. And players would tend to stay in the zones they like, so there would be very little traveling between the two.

Regardless, that isn't what this thread is about, so we should stay on topic.

If you don't want to talk about Veteran Zones then why did you comment on my post to Mik195 about them? haha

And I disagree. Sometimes players may feel like a challenge. Other times they may not. So I believe there would be plenty of travel between them. In any case; travel between them would still be easy, just as it now. As stated: the game is already split up into different instances.

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

There is a big difference between CP 160 and CP 810. And players would tend to stay in the zones they like, so there would be very little traveling between the two.

Regardless, that isn't what this thread is about, so we should stay on topic.

If you don't want to talk about it then why did you comment on my post to Mik195 about it? haha

I never said we shouldn't address it, but I don't want to keep drifting too far off topic.

It's not "off topic", SilverBride. This thread is about how the open world is too easy and optional Veteran Zones would be an effective way to address this problem.

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

This thread is about how the open world is too easy and optional Veteran Zones would be an effective way to address this problem.

The OP wants the overland mobs to be harder so players won't just run past them. He doesn't mention optional veteran zones.

Right. The OP states that the open world is too easy.

Optional Veteran Zones would allow for more challenging content in the open world without impacting those players who are content with the current difficulty. So it's not "off topic". It's a proposed solution to the problem/topic put forth by this thread.

And once again the difficulty thread turns into this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YWuNwLtY1s

Fine, have your vet zones, but remember, the only reward here is the journey itself. No more shinies for you.

Jeremy wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

If there was an optional veteran zone for overland content (the same way there already is for dungeons) then you could simply stay in the regular zones to do quests in if you don't want to have to pay attention. And those of us who would like a decent challenge while questing/exploring we can move on to the Veteran Zones.

Everyone wins.

Everyone loses, because this would separate the playerbase into two separate worlds. They may as well make a completely new game because that is basically what this would do.

Entirely true. That's just not a "fix" - it's another implementation of a "new problem".

Caveat: I really enjoy an MMO - lots of activity, world isn't static, plenty of people (not NPCs - PLAYER people) in game. But when you start fragmenting those players into "special" areas, it really does cause issues.

The game is already split up into instances so what you are describing has already happened.

Mirrors are created when necessary. Most of the time there are not enough players to have more than one mirror. Practically all base game zones are single mirror zones. Even Summerset most of the time has at most 2 mirrors, only weekends and events bring enough players to create more.

I don't actually agree that veteran zones will separate players in a noticable way. Most of the time there will be 1-3 players in such a veteran zone. The impact on performance, though, will be catastrophic.

Olauron wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

If there was an optional veteran zone for overland content (the same way there already is for dungeons) then you could simply stay in the regular zones to do quests in if you don't want to have to pay attention. And those of us who would like a decent challenge while questing/exploring we can move on to the Veteran Zones.

Everyone wins.

Everyone loses, because this would separate the playerbase into two separate worlds. They may as well make a completely new game because that is basically what this would do.

Entirely true. That's just not a "fix" - it's another implementation of a "new problem".

Caveat: I really enjoy an MMO - lots of activity, world isn't static, plenty of people (not NPCs - PLAYER people) in game. But when you start fragmenting those players into "special" areas, it really does cause issues.

The game is already split up into instances so what you are describing has already happened.

Mirrors are created when necessary. Most of the time there are not enough players to have more than one mirror. Practically all base game zones are single mirror zones. Even Summerset most of the time has at most 2 mirrors, only weekends and events bring enough players to create more.

I don't actually agree that veteran zones will separate players in a noticable way. Most of the time there will be 1-3 players in such a veteran zone. The impact on performance, though, will be catastrophic.

Veteran zones would be popular I can promise you. I only wish the developers would give it a trial run so players would see that for themselves. You have only to look at the constant stream of new threads asking for a more challenging landscape to see that. I know several players personally who have quit playing this game because they considered the landscape a bore.

In any case: it shouldn't have any negative effect on performance because it would be in a different instance. So if anything, it would probably improve performance because it would spread out the population across more instances. Larger concentrations of players in the same instance are what's going to cause performance issues.

Jeremy wrote: »

Olauron wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

If there was an optional veteran zone for overland content (the same way there already is for dungeons) then you could simply stay in the regular zones to do quests in if you don't want to have to pay attention. And those of us who would like a decent challenge while questing/exploring we can move on to the Veteran Zones.

Everyone wins.

Everyone loses, because this would separate the playerbase into two separate worlds. They may as well make a completely new game because that is basically what this would do.

Entirely true. That's just not a "fix" - it's another implementation of a "new problem".

Caveat: I really enjoy an MMO - lots of activity, world isn't static, plenty of people (not NPCs - PLAYER people) in game. But when you start fragmenting those players into "special" areas, it really does cause issues.

The game is already split up into instances so what you are describing has already happened.

Mirrors are created when necessary. Most of the time there are not enough players to have more than one mirror. Practically all base game zones are single mirror zones. Even Summerset most of the time has at most 2 mirrors, only weekends and events bring enough players to create more.

I don't actually agree that veteran zones will separate players in a noticable way. Most of the time there will be 1-3 players in such a veteran zone. The impact on performance, though, will be catastrophic.

Veteran zones would be popular I can promise you. I only wish the developers would give it a trial run so players would see that for themselves. You have only to look at the constant stream of new threads asking for a more challenging landscape to see that. I know several players personally who have quit playing this game because they considered the landscape a bore.

In any case: it shouldn't have any negative effect on performance because it would be in a different instance. So if anything, it would probably improve performance because it would spread out the population across more instances. Larger concentrations of players in the same instance are what's going to cause performance issues.

There already has been a trial, there already have been veteran zones. Empty veteran zones. Yes, yes, restricted by alliance, but when you multiply zero by three, you still get zero.
Threads... threads are created and discussed by the same 10 people from all the platforms.

You are wrong about performance, because the more mirrors a single server has to maintain, the worse the performance. Or do you think that ZOS will increase number of servers to keep more mirrors? They will not. Just an example: creating more cyrodiilic campaigns (mirrors) leads to lag in empty Artaeum delve. Almost every MYM event. Another example: one server will work much better with one mirror with 10 players than with 10 mirrors with 1 player in each. You will get increased performance only when you have more servers to distribute mirrors.

Jeremy wrote: »

Olauron wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Olauron wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

If there was an optional veteran zone for overland content (the same way there already is for dungeons) then you could simply stay in the regular zones to do quests in if you don't want to have to pay attention. And those of us who would like a decent challenge while questing/exploring we can move on to the Veteran Zones.

Everyone wins.

Everyone loses, because this would separate the playerbase into two separate worlds. They may as well make a completely new game because that is basically what this would do.

Entirely true. That's just not a "fix" - it's another implementation of a "new problem".

Caveat: I really enjoy an MMO - lots of activity, world isn't static, plenty of people (not NPCs - PLAYER people) in game. But when you start fragmenting those players into "special" areas, it really does cause issues.

The game is already split up into instances so what you are describing has already happened.

Mirrors are created when necessary. Most of the time there are not enough players to have more than one mirror. Practically all base game zones are single mirror zones. Even Summerset most of the time has at most 2 mirrors, only weekends and events bring enough players to create more.

I don't actually agree that veteran zones will separate players in a noticable way. Most of the time there will be 1-3 players in such a veteran zone. The impact on performance, though, will be catastrophic.

Veteran zones would be popular I can promise you. I only wish the developers would give it a trial run so players would see that for themselves. You have only to look at the constant stream of new threads asking for a more challenging landscape to see that. I know several players personally who have quit playing this game because they considered the landscape a bore.

In any case: it shouldn't have any negative effect on performance because it would be in a different instance. So if anything, it would probably improve performance because it would spread out the population across more instances. Larger concentrations of players in the same instance are what's going to cause performance issues.

There already has been a trial, there already have been veteran zones. Empty veteran zones. Yes, yes, restricted by alliance, but when you multiply zero by three, you still get zero.
Threads... threads are created and discussed by the same 10 people from all the platforms.

You are wrong about performance, because the more mirrors a single server has to maintain, the worse the performance. Or do you think that ZOS will increase number of servers to keep more mirrors? They will not. Just an example: creating more cyrodiilic campaigns (mirrors) leads to lag in empty Artaeum delve. Almost every MYM event. Another example: one server will work much better with one mirror with 10 players than with 10 mirrors with 1 player in each. You will get increased performance only when you have more servers to distribute mirrors.

And I'm not wrong about performance. Why do you think they make new instances of zones to begin with? That's right. It's to improve performance.

There are two reasons why new mirrors may improve performance:
1. It decreases the number of people fighting near each other. This is very rare situation, that happens only during events, when some zone is overcrowded (like when the whole zone population was on the one dragon during the save cats event). During normal gameplay players are distributed across the zone and don't use combat abilities simultaneously on each other leading to non-linear increase of calculations. When every player fights his own mob, calculations increase linear for every player and cause the same stress on server no matter what mirror this player is in (while each mirror itself causes additional stress on server).
2. It allows distributing mirrors across servers. When you have a fixed number of servers that are already full, you will not get performance increase.

Jeremy wrote: »

Olauron wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Olauron wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Olauron wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

If there was an optional veteran zone for overland content (the same way there already is for dungeons) then you could simply stay in the regular zones to do quests in if you don't want to have to pay attention. And those of us who would like a decent challenge while questing/exploring we can move on to the Veteran Zones.

Everyone wins.

Everyone loses, because this would separate the playerbase into two separate worlds. They may as well make a completely new game because that is basically what this would do.

Entirely true. That's just not a "fix" - it's another implementation of a "new problem".

Caveat: I really enjoy an MMO - lots of activity, world isn't static, plenty of people (not NPCs - PLAYER people) in game. But when you start fragmenting those players into "special" areas, it really does cause issues.

The game is already split up into instances so what you are describing has already happened.

Mirrors are created when necessary. Most of the time there are not enough players to have more than one mirror. Practically all base game zones are single mirror zones. Even Summerset most of the time has at most 2 mirrors, only weekends and events bring enough players to create more.

I don't actually agree that veteran zones will separate players in a noticable way. Most of the time there will be 1-3 players in such a veteran zone. The impact on performance, though, will be catastrophic.

Veteran zones would be popular I can promise you. I only wish the developers would give it a trial run so players would see that for themselves. You have only to look at the constant stream of new threads asking for a more challenging landscape to see that. I know several players personally who have quit playing this game because they considered the landscape a bore.

In any case: it shouldn't have any negative effect on performance because it would be in a different instance. So if anything, it would probably improve performance because it would spread out the population across more instances. Larger concentrations of players in the same instance are what's going to cause performance issues.

There already has been a trial, there already have been veteran zones. Empty veteran zones. Yes, yes, restricted by alliance, but when you multiply zero by three, you still get zero.
Threads... threads are created and discussed by the same 10 people from all the platforms.

You are wrong about performance, because the more mirrors a single server has to maintain, the worse the performance. Or do you think that ZOS will increase number of servers to keep more mirrors? They will not. Just an example: creating more cyrodiilic campaigns (mirrors) leads to lag in empty Artaeum delve. Almost every MYM event. Another example: one server will work much better with one mirror with 10 players than with 10 mirrors with 1 player in each. You will get increased performance only when you have more servers to distribute mirrors.

And I'm not wrong about performance. Why do you think they make new instances of zones to begin with? That's right. It's to improve performance.

There are two reasons why new mirrors may improve performance:
1. It decreases the number of people fighting near each other. This is very rare situation, that happens only during events, when some zone is overcrowded (like when the whole zone population was on the one dragon during the save cats event). During normal gameplay players are distributed across the zone and don't use combat abilities simultaneously on each other leading to non-linear increase of calculations. When every player fights his own mob, calculations increase linear for every player and cause the same stress on server no matter what mirror this player is in (while each mirror itself causes additional stress on server).
2. It allows distributing mirrors across servers. When you have a fixed number of servers that are already full, you will not get performance increase.

Not exactly.

Having lots of players using abilities simultaneously in the same general area can cause slow down and lag (that's mostly graphic related). But there are other factors as well. When ever you load into an instance the engine has to load a lot of variables that correspond to your specific character. So when you split players up into different instances it eases the load on the system so it doesn't have to juggle so many players at once. So less players in an instance most definitely improves performance whether they are nearby or not.

As I pointed out to you in my last post - if extra veteran zones really did cause catastrophic lag like you suggested, then the game would have been unplayable back when there were more veteran zones then people knew what to do with. But instead the game ran smoother back then.

That is not a number of players in one mirror, that is a number of players in one area (or visible, or potentially visible with rotation depending on implementation). Number of players in a mirror just limits the number of players in one area, but it is not equal to it. Some player doing something in Shimmerene has the same impact on my performance in Alinor no matter what mirror he is in (if on one server and not counting resources for mirror itself).

Do you think that there was the same number of servers back then? You can't compare performance a few years ago and performance now. Also, you have less base game zones now (1/3 of the launch number), but you have 12 more DLC zones now, you have housing with a lot more instances, you have trials with their own instances and you have dlc dungeons that are more stressful to server now. There was also no group finder as far as I remember, that 1) eats resources for itself; 2) allows much more groups to form at the same time than players could form manually (and that means more instances, and that means that long queue times may be not only a result of few tanks (healers), but a result of limited server capacity for limited number of open instances, and you should wait for some instance to close before creating another).
So, while it is impossible to compare game as it was with game as it is, there are thing that you can be certain of: 1) there will be more DLC zones each year; 2) there will be no increase in server number to hold more instances (and be glad if there will be no decrease of this number).