Caligamy_ESO wrote: »

TBH I skimmed this wall of text but the one thing that really popped out at me and irked me was the housing furniture limitations spiel.

If the clients would crash from being packed too full as stated, then why are the smaller & medium houses slot allotments so abysmal when compared to 700 furnishing houses? Is it the render distance to the entrance we're talking about here? I feel like further clarification is definitely needed because at face value it sounds like absolute nonsense.

My computer can handle ESO pretty well at 100+fps, but a couple of the most detailed manors my friends have made cause my system to overheat horribly, and even crash.

It's not nonsense. The devs are absolutely right when they say the limit cannot really be increased just yet. You have to think about the worst case scenarios.

They always do work to further optimize the game. Update 38 includes new culling technology that could help reduce the performance cost of any furniture that's not currently visible. Hopefully that will be a good step towards higher furniture limits in the future.

There are some other workarounds ZOS could try. Like making some furnitures be worth 0.5, 0.25, or 2 slots, depending on their complexity. But that's also an imperfect solution.

It's a difficult problem to solve.

K9002 wrote: »

I couldn't help but laugh at the 200+ earnable cosmetics part. He must have counted every individual style and motif page. But when these things are sold in the crown store, it's not 14 individual items. It's one motif book. I guess in the bombastic marketing lingo it's a generous 14 in 1 deal.

Yeah, but that stuff does not make itself. Since they can be used individually, someone has to sit down and do each one of those separate parts, whether they are bundled into a book or not. If we had to use them like costumes, all or nothing, then I would agree with you.

K9002 wrote: »

I couldn't help but laugh at the 200+ earnable cosmetics part. He must have counted every individual style and motif page. But when these things are sold in the crown store, it's not 14 individual items. It's one motif book. I guess in the bombastic marketing lingo it's a generous 14 in 1 deal.

There are currently 115 crafting motifs you can earn for free. Add that to the >47 outfit styles you can earn for free. Add to that who knows how many hats, costumes, and pets. Plus furnitures and earnable homes.

Yeah, 200 is not actually that wild of a number, even if you don't count the individual pages.

Marto wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Which part of the interview are you basing your opening comments about contributions on?

That was a general statement, just given some historical reactions I’ve seen. I’m gonna rewrite when I get home and quote the interview for better context.

In other words, it was nothing to do with the interview but you wanted to make a personal rant at the top of the post to attract the most attention. I suggest you delete it in your edit, it devalues your entire response to the interview.

Eh, the interview has his usual style of comments that could be considered dismissive/combative.

For example:

Will there be more earnable cosmetics (like skins) through content in Elder Scrolls Online: Necrom? The community is hoping to get them.

I would love to dig into that because we do have that already. Like, there are skins for completing dungeons. There is a mount that you can get for completing the hardest of the child's things.

There's all kinds of cosmetics that we put into the game. My question to them would be if they just want skins to be easier to get or if they want more skins. I think last year alone, there were over 200 different cosmetics that you could go and grind for and earn in the game. That would be a question I would love to have answered.

He took a clear window to talk about the new exciting cosmetics in Necrom the art team has likely made and instead choose to make his response primarily challenging that their was a lack of earn-able cosmetics.

Hostile questions beget defensive answers.

"Will there be more earnable cosmetics (like skins) through content in Elder Scrolls Online: Necrom? The community is hoping to get them." is a loaded question. And it's honestly kinda disrespectful and unethical for the interviewer to have worded it that way.

It's like... To give an analogy, imagine your parents or other family ask you "When are you going to get a decent job?"
Your only options are to say "I'll get a better job soon." which is an irresponsible promise to make on the fly, and it makes one look weak willed.
Or to say "My current job is decent enough", which makes you look defensive, or like you're avoiding the subject.

How would you expect Rich (or any any other developer) to answer a question like that?
If he says "we're doing it" that's a promise which they may or may not be able to fulfill.
If he says "we're discussing it" that's honest, but doesn't inspire confidence.
If he says "we have enough cosmetic rewards" it makes him look defensive.

There's no way to win.

Are you joking? The only point of an interview is to ask challenging questions. What is the point of asking anything otherwise? Oh and the way to win would be being honest. If people aren’t satisfied. That’s on them. Honesty is always the answer, otherwise you end up looking foolish and losing your players trust.

.

Stx wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Which part of the interview are you basing your opening comments about contributions on?

That was a general statement, just given some historical reactions I’ve seen. I’m gonna rewrite when I get home and quote the interview for better context.

In other words, it was nothing to do with the interview but you wanted to make a personal rant at the top of the post to attract the most attention. I suggest you delete it in your edit, it devalues your entire response to the interview.

Eh, the interview has his usual style of comments that could be considered dismissive/combative.

For example:

Will there be more earnable cosmetics (like skins) through content in Elder Scrolls Online: Necrom? The community is hoping to get them.

I would love to dig into that because we do have that already. Like, there are skins for completing dungeons. There is a mount that you can get for completing the hardest of the child's things.

There's all kinds of cosmetics that we put into the game. My question to them would be if they just want skins to be easier to get or if they want more skins. I think last year alone, there were over 200 different cosmetics that you could go and grind for and earn in the game. That would be a question I would love to have answered.

He took a clear window to talk about the new exciting cosmetics in Necrom the art team has likely made and instead choose to make his response primarily challenging that their was a lack of earn-able cosmetics.

Hostile questions beget defensive answers.

"Will there be more earnable cosmetics (like skins) through content in Elder Scrolls Online: Necrom? The community is hoping to get them." is a loaded question. And it's honestly kinda disrespectful and unethical for the interviewer to have worded it that way.

It's like... To give an analogy, imagine your parents or other family ask you "When are you going to get a decent job?"
Your only options are to say "I'll get a better job soon." which is an irresponsible promise to make on the fly, and it makes one look weak willed.
Or to say "My current job is decent enough", which makes you look defensive, or like you're avoiding the subject.

How would you expect Rich (or any any other developer) to answer a question like that?
If he says "we're doing it" that's a promise which they may or may not be able to fulfill.
If he says "we're discussing it" that's honest, but doesn't inspire confidence.
If he says "we have enough cosmetic rewards" it makes him look defensive.

There's no way to win.

Are you joking? The only point of an interview is to ask challenging questions. What is the point of asking anything otherwise? Oh and the way to win would be being honest. If people aren’t satisfied. That’s on them. Honesty is always the answer, otherwise you end up looking foolish and losing your players trust.

This isn't Watergate. He's not the President. Let's get some perspective here, we're all sat around talking about a video game not life-changing events. [snip] Truth to power and the fate of the world this is not.

[edited for bashing]

Stx wrote: »

Are you joking? The only point of an interview is to ask challenging questions. What is the point of asking anything otherwise? Oh and the way to win would be being honest. If people aren’t satisfied. That’s on them. Honesty is always the answer, otherwise you end up looking foolish and losing your players trust.

The point of the interview is to provide information about an upcoming product.

Northwold wrote: »

This isn't Watergate. He's not the President.

Exactly.

Tandor wrote: »

Also, when we talk here about losing your players' trust we're really only talking about the 1% of players who've read the interview and have a firm opinion on it.

Honestly, ZOS already did that for me. A year ago. Now they need to build my trust. Still, 2023 just started. They have plenty of time to come up with new and creative ways to get me to stop playing.

Marto wrote: »

K9002 wrote: »

I couldn't help but laugh at the 200+ earnable cosmetics part. He must have counted every individual style and motif page. But when these things are sold in the crown store, it's not 14 individual items. It's one motif book. I guess in the bombastic marketing lingo it's a generous 14 in 1 deal.

There are currently 115 crafting motifs you can earn for free. Add that to the >47 outfit styles you can earn for free. Add to that who knows how many hats, costumes, and pets. Plus furnitures and earnable homes.

Yeah, 200 is not actually that wild of a number, even if you don't count the individual pages.

I read it as he was saying 200 with Year of Breton alone, so I think he could only get that number with the individual pages.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

K9002 wrote: »

I couldn't help but laugh at the 200+ earnable cosmetics part. He must have counted every individual style and motif page. But when these things are sold in the crown store, it's not 14 individual items. It's one motif book. I guess in the bombastic marketing lingo it's a generous 14 in 1 deal.

There are currently 115 crafting motifs you can earn for free. Add that to the >47 outfit styles you can earn for free. Add to that who knows how many hats, costumes, and pets. Plus furnitures and earnable homes.

Yeah, 200 is not actually that wild of a number, even if you don't count the individual pages.

I read it as he was saying 200 with Year of Breton alone, so I think he could only get that number with the individual pages.

Honestly, I think that ZOS has a broader definition of "cosmetic" that includes more than just styles.

Let's look back at 2022 for earnable cosmetics....

There were 4 DLC/Chapters, 12 main events, and 12 months of daily rewards. We also received earnable cosmetics through the luxury vendor and antiquities.


Outfit Styles

Total: 21

Dyes

Total: 8

Markings

Total: 14

Polymorphs
Total: 0

Costumes
Total: 6

Hairstyles Total: 1

Mounts
Total: 2

Non- Combat Pets

Total: 7


Skins
Total: 2

Titles

Total: 37

Mementos
Total: 6

Emotes

Total: 8

Busts/trophies Furnishings

Total: 10

Lux Furnishings

Total: 52

Achievement Furnishings
Total: 42

21+8+14+0+6+1+2+7+2+37+6+8+10+52+42=216


I was not able to count the number of furnishings added that weren't earned by achievements because the wiki mixed in those furnishings with the stuff in the crates, presumably because they were earnable through endeavors. But since we're looking to specifically exclude those earned by endeavors, that was undesirable. I didn't want to scroll through all of the furnishings I already counted and crown crate ones to find the ones that are earnable through stealing, looting, crafting, etc.

However, even without those variously sourced earnable furnishings or counting each individual page as one item, there is still over 200 free cosmetics added to the game.

So, I guess Rich was correct. The question really isn't "we need more collectibles." But rather, which type of collectibles in specific do people mean? What type of content do you want to see drop more collectibles?

Going over this list, I realized that a good chunk of the collectibles are just titles, which I don't care about. I also realized the thing that I was personally missing was costumes, hairstyles, and mounts rather than the generic idea of more collectibles.

.

joergino wrote: »

I wouldn't count furnishings as cosmetics. But that may be nitpicking since they don't exist to customize charcters, but houses which nobody ever sees.

Since housing is often referred to as an ESO "end game", I would definitely include furniture, and maybe even the houses themselves, as cosmetic.

K9002 wrote: »

I couldn't help but laugh at the 200+ earnable cosmetics part. He must have counted every individual style and motif page. But when these things are sold in the crown store, it's not 14 individual items. It's one motif book. I guess in the bombastic marketing lingo it's a generous 14 in 1 deal.

In marketing, that would actually be 16, not 14-in-1, to be technically correct. 14 collectible motif pages, 1 gold crown motif book, and 1 gold non-crown motif book. So it inflates the actual number, but it's not wrong. Some people are going to farm the pages, some will buy the book, and collectors will want the non-crown book because of how rare it is.

I'm sorry, we're those questions meant to be hostile?

VaranisArano wrote: »

I'm gonna give Rich Lambert a pass on the cosmetics answer, since I went ahead and asked his question after reading the interview. Admittedly, its a small forum poll, so take any conclusions with a grain of salt. The comments are pretty nuanced, so I wouldn't be too surprised if the team's been getting similarly mixed feedback that's led him to ask for clarification.

Poll: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/627390/do-you-want-more-earnable-cosmetics-or-easier-earnable-cosmetics/p1

Not gonna lie, when I posted that poll, I didn't really expect to wind up thinking "You know, maybe Rich Lambert has a point," but that's where I've ended up.

That was a good poll/discussion and has actually been pretty eye-opening.

But yes, he does have a point. I think it's helpful to understand what his definition of cosmetics truly is. Unfortunately, he hasn't provided that, so sounds like we're left to our own personal definitions. I consider "cosmetic" to be anything used to personalize the player's experience. That includes houses, mounts, furnishings, etc. - pretty wide net. The motifs and outfits are by-and-large earnable, which is great. Even if I don't personally like that some of them are only earnable for a limited time, I'll give credit where it's due. I feel like the treatment on houses and mounts is less generous, so I wanted to edit my original post with some additional research I did.

Destai wrote: »

Northwold wrote: »

Again, can we get some perspective here, or indeed, a little self respect? Posts are now descending into the dynamics of a video game company employee's marriage. I mean, seriously, take a step back because this kind of stuff is plain embarrassing to read.

It's a game. This level of personal comment, starting from a heavily distorted original post that deliberately misrepresented everything that was said in an amateurish interview onwards (that post has since been radically edited multiple times) , and now into demands that people lose their jobs because you don't personally like that the game does not exactly meet your personal requirements, is out of order and doesn't do people any credit.

If there's something you feel I've misrepresented, then I invite you to clarify your positions. There was no deliberate misrepresentation. It was a post made late at night after a bar romp, and I was mature enough to realize I did the topic a disservice. As such, I've gone back and edited it so that conversation has clearer framing. And after seeing some additional facts and doing my own research, I wanted those revisions captured. The essence of my commentary is the same, though.

We went through this at the time. What you posted was a false representation of what the interview said (indeed, it was unrecognisable) that appeared designed more for you to have a vent at Lambert than based on anything that actually came out of his mouth, based on your own personal grievances with the game.

It was utterly unfair and, naturally, invited a pile on based on things he plain did not say. You may well have changed the post since. But you should not have posted it in its original form in the first place. It had nothing to do with the interview and everything to do with your own preoccupations.

People do not seem to understand that there is all the difference in the world between criticising the game and personal attacks on the people who make it (in which I include dropping false narratives into people's mouths and attacking them -- the actual definition of the much-abused term "strawman"). The latter is very far from "mature" and, actually, is a very good advert for adults to ignore complaints from people who do that completely.