[FISHING] I'm going to get so much hate for this, but.

spartaxoxo · January 27

VoxAdActa wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

For example, basic fisher gets 2 casts for every 1 of the upgraded rod. But, the fish is fatter for the upgraded rod, so it has loot similar in quality to pulling 2 casts.

That's how these things generally work in other games?

I wouldn't know, I don't fish in other games.

You think that the "fun fishers" wouldn't complain that they get half as many chances to catch the achievement fish than "boring fishers"? Or are we revamping the whole fishing achievement system, too?

I've never seen people complain about that in other games because they balance it out by giving them different fish.

I think the rewards could be improved for both types of fishers.

VoxAdActa · January 27

So we're suggesting adding an entirely new system, new equipment slots, new equipment, new fish, new loot, new loot tables, and a new, separate achievement track. Anything else we can get you with our unlimited time and resources? Do you want a new skill line, too? New CP nodes? Maybe some new scribing?

spartaxoxo · January 27

VoxAdActa wrote: »

So we're suggesting adding an entirely new system, new equipment slots, new equipment, new fish, new loot tables, and a new, separate achievement track. Anything else we can get you with our unlimited time and resources? Do you want a new skill line, too? New CP nodes? Maybe some new scribing?

I'm sure you never make suggestions for QOL improvements to the game and suggest they only work on Cyrodiil? That part of the game is legit broken so obviously nothing else should get done til it's fixed?

We give our best feedback on something that would make the game more fun and the devs hopefully fit it when they can. Some things will be high priority and some things will smaller in scope and just for adding more fun to the game. It may take a while for those things to come out.

People said this same thing about grandmaster crafting tables but the game is better for it. Same with activity finder. Same with a myriad of other suggestions.

I think fishing would be better if there was options to make it more interesting. That's it.

SilverBride · January 27

VoxAdActa wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FrQuAaZpx08 ]

Thanks for the video. It is a real eye opener.

If this is what is being suggested, that is as far from fun as it gets.

VoxAdActa · January 27

Cool, so in addition to "assume perfectly spherical objects in a vacuum," ("make it optional), we're also now at "assume infinite energy inputs" ("no resource/difficulty constraints").

These aren't real suggestions. They're idle fantasies.

Edit: While we're here, how about a brand new Fisher class? And a new zone for fishing! And maybe a fishing-based dungeon! OR A TRIAL!

Let's do a whole expansion cycle just for fishing! The sky's the limit!

spartaxoxo · January 27

VoxAdActa wrote: »

Cool, so in addition to "assume perfectly spherical objects in a vacuum," ("make it optional), we're also now at "assume infinite energy inputs" ("no resource/difficulty constraints").

These aren't real suggestions. They're idle fantasies.

Edit: While we're here, how about a brand new Fisher class? And a new zone for fishing! And maybe a fishing-based dungeon! OR A TRIAL!

Let's do a whole expansion cycle just for fishing! The sky's the limit!

It's not on players to budget things. It's on players to communicate what they think will improve the game. It is then on the developers to determine if a change is to be made and its priority level. Story Mode for Dungeons got added to their to-do list but it will not be coming soon for obvious reasons. There's really no reason that better fishing couldn't be added to that list too.

We aren't the developers. All suggestions are just dream scenarios. Improved fishing isn't something that would require years of continuous development. It would be a one time thing and it can easily be small in scope. We got Tales and that required far more development time because it continuously gets new cards and requires balancing. The idea that something far smaller than that is just way beyond scope to ever come to fruition isn't really based on anything but not wanting this change imo. Fishing in games is some of the oldest gaming mechs.

Treating extremely old, widespread, and commonly optional game features as pure fantasy and massive in scope doesn't hold much water to me.

disky · January 27

spartaxoxo wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

<snipped for brevity>

I don't see that as an indication that people enjoy fishing and don't wish to see change. More like people don't trust ZOS to make things optional.

Well.... exactly this. Though for me, fishing as is IS fun, though I am probably a minority as usual.

I don't think most players enjoy fishing. But, I wouldn't want ZOS to do something that removes the enjoyment from the people who do, regardless if the population is seemingly pretty small. I get the fear of how ZOS handles things. They have been heavy handed in the past.

Is it enjoyment, or is it operant conditioning? I believe that in the case of fishing, what people perceive as fun is really just learned behavior reward baiting that makes their brain go ding. It's the most primal form of entertainment possible and I just want something more involved than that.

I get the fear of change, but the outright dismissal of the idea of asking for change is what is happening here, and that's the trend I'm against. It's the extreme conservatism of the regulars on this forum.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I just don't think that's on us as players. I think being able to engage in activities in multiple different ways generally makes activities more immersive, fun, and interesting to a bigger group of people. And I think live services games should refine their systems for constant improvements. Single player games are static by nature but the beauty of a live service game is that it can change.

I think about changes like golden pursuits, which seems to be feedback about the game lacking variety in the way rewards are earned and needing more options, and think they are a good thing when done right.

Hear hear.

SilverBride · January 27

More complicated and time consuming fishing does not equal better fishing.

Elvenheart · January 27

VoxAdActa wrote: »

Taril wrote: »

What's fishing like in Stardew Valley? I have absolutely no idea. I've never played the game. Nor has any details on what the fishing mechanics of the game been provided. So... What is there for me to discuss?

Since none of the "fun fishing" proponents were willing to describe it, I looked it up. It looks like a total nightmare, tbh, and I see why one of the most popular mods removes it entirely.

Here's how it works:

1. You cast your line.

2. You wait.

3. Eventually (random timer, influenced by bait, environment conditions, etc.), a fish bites. You push a button to hook it.

4. A mini-game appears. The mini-game is a vertical slider-bar. The fish moves up and down in this bar.

5. Rapidly tapping a button moves a green catch-zone up the bar. Slow tapping lets it move slowly down the bar. Releasing the button drops it to the bottom (where it bounces before settling, which adds to the nightmare).

6. Easy fish mostly stay in one spot, or move very little. Difficult fish zip up and down randomly at amazing speeds.

7. When your catch zone is on the fish, the timer bar starts to fill. The bar must fill completely to catch the fish.

8. Whenever your catch zone is not on the fish, the timer bar starts to run out. If the timer bar runs out, you lose the fish and start over from 1.

I strongly suspect that the "fun fishing" folks haven't specified the nature of the Stardew Valley system because they know we'd immediately be like "OH UGH, HECK NO" when we heard what it actually entails.

Edit: This is the system being suggested:
[Edit 2: finding a better video; all of them seem to involve some amount of cussing]
[Edit 3: Here we go: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FrQuAaZpx08 ]

OMG, if fishing was like that in ESO, especially for rare fish, "Special fish! Special fish! Oh, I lost the special fish!" I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole EVER EVER!!!!! IMHO that's one of the worst game things I've ever seen!

disky · January 27

SilverBride wrote: »

More complicated and time consuming fishing does not equal better fishing.

No, those qualifiers don't automatically make something better, you're absolutely right, but I can't imagine anyone coming to a forum to ask for complicated and time-consuming fishing for the sake of it. I get that you may not have experienced fishing minigames in any other game, but there are plenty of good ones that make the activity fun to do, and there are unlimited possibilities which the devs could employ that might be just as good.

disky · January 27

VoxAdActa wrote: »

Cool, so in addition to "assume perfectly spherical objects in a vacuum," ("make it optional), we're also now at "assume infinite energy inputs" ("no resource/difficulty constraints").

These aren't real suggestions. They're idle fantasies.

Edit: While we're here, how about a brand new Fisher class? And a new zone for fishing! And maybe a fishing-based dungeon! OR A TRIAL!

Let's do a whole expansion cycle just for fishing! The sky's the limit!

I can't believe you're not even the least bit excited about my G'Blorpus idea. I'm shattered.

spartaxoxo · January 27

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

<snipped for brevity>

I don't see that as an indication that people enjoy fishing and don't wish to see change. More like people don't trust ZOS to make things optional.

Well.... exactly this. Though for me, fishing as is IS fun, though I am probably a minority as usual.

I don't think most players enjoy fishing. But, I wouldn't want ZOS to do something that removes the enjoyment from the people who do, regardless if the population is seemingly pretty small. I get the fear of how ZOS handles things. They have been heavy handed in the past.

Is it enjoyment, or is it operant conditioning? I believe that in the case of fishing, what people perceive as fun is really just learned behavior reward baiting that makes their brain go ding. It's the most primal form of entertainment possible and I just want something more involved than that.

I get the fear of change, but the outright dismissal of the idea of asking for change is what is happening here, and that's the trend I'm against. It's the extreme conservatism of the regulars on this forum.

EnerG wrote: »

I just don't think that's on us as players. I think being able to engage in activities in multiple different ways generally makes activities more immersive, fun, and interesting to a bigger group of people. And I think live services games should refine their systems for constant improvements. Single player games are static by nature but the beauty of a live service game is that it can change.

I think about changes like golden pursuits, which seems to be feedback about the game lacking variety in the way rewards are earned and needing more options, and think they are a good thing when done right.

Hear hear.

FYI I'm the one that said the second quote not EnerG.

Edit

As for your question, I do think it's enjoyment. It's like listening to something mindless and just letting your mind clear. It doesn't appeal to myself personally but I understand the appeal in theory.

SilverBride · January 27

disky wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

More complicated and time consuming fishing does not equal better fishing.

No, those qualifiers don't automatically make something better, you're absolutely right, but I can't imagine anyone coming to a forum to ask for complicated and time-consuming fishing for the sake of it. I get that you may not have experienced fishing minigames in any other game, but there are plenty of good ones that make the activity fun to do, and there are unlimited possibilities which the devs could employ that might be just as good.

Oh but I have. I have played other MMO's that had fishing and I never saw anything like what that video showed. I don't even have words for how awful that looks.

disky · January 27

spartaxoxo wrote: »

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

<snipped for brevity>

I don't see that as an indication that people enjoy fishing and don't wish to see change. More like people don't trust ZOS to make things optional.

Well.... exactly this. Though for me, fishing as is IS fun, though I am probably a minority as usual.

I don't think most players enjoy fishing. But, I wouldn't want ZOS to do something that removes the enjoyment from the people who do, regardless if the population is seemingly pretty small. I get the fear of how ZOS handles things. They have been heavy handed in the past.

Is it enjoyment, or is it operant conditioning? I believe that in the case of fishing, what people perceive as fun is really just learned behavior reward baiting that makes their brain go ding. It's the most primal form of entertainment possible and I just want something more involved than that.

I get the fear of change, but the outright dismissal of the idea of asking for change is what is happening here, and that's the trend I'm against. It's the extreme conservatism of the regulars on this forum.

EnerG wrote: »

I just don't think that's on us as players. I think being able to engage in activities in multiple different ways generally makes activities more immersive, fun, and interesting to a bigger group of people. And I think live services games should refine their systems for constant improvements. Single player games are static by nature but the beauty of a live service game is that it can change.

I think about changes like golden pursuits, which seems to be feedback about the game lacking variety in the way rewards are earned and needing more options, and think they are a good thing when done right.

Hear hear.

FYI I'm the one that said the second quote not EnerG.

Sorry, I know, editing mistake.

Elvenheart · January 27

The OP accuses us all of being negative because we actually like something the way it is in ESO and do not want to see it changed, the OP even says in the title they know they are going to get hate for this thread, but I say liking something in the game the way it is and not wanting to see it change is not being negative, defensive, or conservative. If I wanted to play a fishing mini-game like the one in Star Dew Valley I'd go to Star Dew Valley to play it, not ask for ZOS to make fishing in this game like fishing in Star Dew Valley, and when I'm tired of fishing and want to do something else I'd come back to ESO and do what I enjoy here. I think what the OP is taking as negativity is just a feeling of, "Hey, we like our game the way it is, why do you keep wanting to change so many aspects of it to make it more fun for YOU?"

VoxAdActa · January 27

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It would be a one time thing and it can easily be small in scope.

That statement does not in any way describe the daydream version of fishing you're suggesting. The changes required for your specific suggestion are massive.

How are the devs going to take the "fun fishers" seriously if the only things they can think of to "fix" fishing require a huge amount of effort (which I listed two posts ago) that only a few people will ever engage with?

The only reasonable thing the devs can take from the "fun fishers" in this thread is "change fishing somehow"; everything else is wild, impossible fantasy.

disky · January 27

SilverBride wrote: »

disky wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

More complicated and time consuming fishing does not equal better fishing.

No, those qualifiers don't automatically make something better, you're absolutely right, but I can't imagine anyone coming to a forum to ask for complicated and time-consuming fishing for the sake of it. I get that you may not have experienced fishing minigames in any other game, but there are plenty of good ones that make the activity fun to do, and there are unlimited possibilities which the devs could employ that might be just as good.

Oh but I have. I have played other MMO's that had fishing and I never saw anything like what that video showed. I don't even have words for how awful that looks.

Stardew fishing is very divisive and ZOS knows this. I'm not expecting anything like that. Frankly, I'd think more along the lines of:

1. cast line
2. fish bites
3. player taps to reel and moves the line left/right to keep the fish on the line
4. catch fish

Not additional UI necessary, just immersion.

Elvenheart · January 27

thorwyn wrote: »

I never really spent too much time fishing, because I find it boring and non-rewarding. Even the addition of mini games as suggested by OP would not change that, so I'm indifferent about it.

However, I would like to add one thought to the discussion that's nagging on me each time I read the forum. Whenever someone is proposing a change to the game, there is an impressively high chance that they will go defensive and play the "but it would just be optional" card at some point. On the surface, "optional" is a one-size-fits-all argument, designed to eliminate any tension between different opinions, but in reality, it is just a passive aggressive attempt at protecting the proposed changes against critical arguments and make each and every idea equally valid, regardless how absurd it may be. "I want flying penguins with rocket launchers? Don't like it? Switch it off!". See? Now YOU are the one to blame if you don't like the change.

While options sound nice and dandy in theory, they can potentially create a matrix of decisions, especially when each and every minor aspect of the game is drowned in more choices and selections than a tuna sandwich at Subways. Whenever ZOS adds a new feature or a QoL improvement of some sorts, a good portion of the player base is not (and will never be) even aware of the additions. Another huge part of the players just don't care and pick whatever is the default option. And a small minority of people are actually using the feature, sometimes complaining about how few people are using the feature. And you think that an option for an activity like fishing would make a difference? Think about extended group finder, think about the "what's that strange icon over my head" mystery and the list goes on.

So my point is: if you propose changes to the game, defend your ideas, convince the community and don't try to bail out from the discussion by using the but-it's-optional trope. It's not helpful.
Just to make this clear, this little rant is not meant to be against OP and his/her ideas.

I've been thinking this about the "optional toggle" suggestion but just wasn't sure how to put it into words so eloquently. Thanks for that! If they make a way to toggle every system in the game to something else, it seems like every system would have to have two or more completely different versions taking up memory and game resources, and in the end it just wouldn't seem worth it.

disky · January 27

VoxAdActa wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It would be a one time thing and it can easily be small in scope.

That statement does not in any way describe the daydream version of fishing you're suggesting. The changes required for your specific suggestion are massive.

How are the devs going to take the "fun fishers" seriously if the only things they can think of to "fix" fishing require a huge amount of effort (which I listed two posts ago) that only a few people will ever engage with?

The only reasonable thing the devs can take from the "fun fishers" in this thread is "change fishing somehow"; everything else is wild, impossible fantasy.

Oh but but look! I put an idea up above! See! I CAN do it!

disky · January 27

Elvenheart wrote: »

thorwyn wrote: »

I never really spent too much time fishing, because I find it boring and non-rewarding. Even the addition of mini games as suggested by OP would not change that, so I'm indifferent about it.

However, I would like to add one thought to the discussion that's nagging on me each time I read the forum. Whenever someone is proposing a change to the game, there is an impressively high chance that they will go defensive and play the "but it would just be optional" card at some point. On the surface, "optional" is a one-size-fits-all argument, designed to eliminate any tension between different opinions, but in reality, it is just a passive aggressive attempt at protecting the proposed changes against critical arguments and make each and every idea equally valid, regardless how absurd it may be. "I want flying penguins with rocket launchers? Don't like it? Switch it off!". See? Now YOU are the one to blame if you don't like the change.

While options sound nice and dandy in theory, they can potentially create a matrix of decisions, especially when each and every minor aspect of the game is drowned in more choices and selections than a tuna sandwich at Subways. Whenever ZOS adds a new feature or a QoL improvement of some sorts, a good portion of the player base is not (and will never be) even aware of the additions. Another huge part of the players just don't care and pick whatever is the default option. And a small minority of people are actually using the feature, sometimes complaining about how few people are using the feature. And you think that an option for an activity like fishing would make a difference? Think about extended group finder, think about the "what's that strange icon over my head" mystery and the list goes on.

So my point is: if you propose changes to the game, defend your ideas, convince the community and don't try to bail out from the discussion by using the but-it's-optional trope. It's not helpful.
Just to make this clear, this little rant is not meant to be against OP and his/her ideas.

I've been thinking this about the "optional toggle" suggestion but just wasn't sure how to put it into words so eloquently. Thanks for that! If they make a way to toggle every system in the game to something else, it seems like every system would have to have two or more completely different versions taking up memory and game resources, and in the end it just wouldn't seem worth it.

As I said previously, the only way I'm even going to get a word in on this forum is if I do everything I can not to force something on players who don't want change. I don't care if it's optional or not, but let's entertain the idea that it is.

SilverBride · January 27

disky wrote: »

Stardew fishing is very divisive and ZOS knows this. I'm not expecting anything like that. Frankly, I'd think more along the lines of:

1. cast line
2. fish bites
3. player taps to reel and moves the line left/right to keep the fish on the line
4. catch fish

Not additional UI necessary, just immersion.

Making things take longer is not immersion. Having to move the line left\right to keep the fish on the oine is not immersion.

This is a very bad idea that will only drive more players away from fishing.

disky · January 27

SilverBride wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Stardew fishing is very divisive and ZOS knows this. I'm not expecting anything like that. Frankly, I'd think more along the lines of:

1. cast line
2. fish bites
3. player taps to reel and moves the line left/right to keep the fish on the line
4. catch fish

Not additional UI necessary, just immersion.

Making things take longer is not immersion. Making things require constant tapping is not immersion.

This is a very bad idea that will only drive more players away from fishing.

See, this is exactly why I didn't provide a specific idea. It doesn't matter what I say, this will be the response. I don't care about the specifics of the change, I just want something more than what we have. And you don't. That's the end of our discussion on this topic.

Aardappelboom · January 27

We can't discuss other games which in this case is a bit counter productive, so i'm going to anyway since it gives some perspective and it would be silly to reinvent the wheel since there's so much already. (feel free to edit it out if needed, ZOS)

First of all, I agree. I don't like it either and I like pretty much everything in this game.

The final fantasy mmo has an interesting approach although it's not very scalable it does give a decent leveling system and some different buttons and skills to play with. And if not for the functionality, the fact you can emote:sit during fishing is just a great feature in itself (yes, I like those kind of details. 😊). What it does is reward you for fishing, not just by providing fish, but by allowing to progress a skill line.

I also loved a much more simple but fun implementation in sea of stars, where the motion of the fish needs to be followed, there was no levels involved but collecting them was the fun part.

That brings me to the stickerbook, make a fish stickerbook and make it a bit immersive, add a map and call it fishing spots, and add all the fish so you can see which ones you caught and which you've missed.

Last but not least, add some fishing questlines. And add some food that spefically needs some rare fish to force some economic transactions. Fishing becomes worthwile that way.

Obviously, if it stays the same I won't mind, but I like my minigames just a bit more interesting.

wolfie1.0. · January 27

disky wrote: »

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Honestly, I feel that right now this falls into the category of what I like to call scope creep or out of scope for what eso really needs.

Sure new fishing mechanics can be fun and less mindless... but exactly how much of the game involves that activity? and how much of the rest of the game needs help?

You don't fix an overheating cpu problem by slapping some rgb lights to your computer, you work on why it's overheating. Other items have priority, then comes rhe bling and yes a fishing enhancement would be being.

Also, one game doesn't have to have everything, sometimes less is more.

3. "This would be a waste of development time/money/resources" - This is the opinion of anyone who doesn't think a particular feature would suit them. It's subjective.

There is a difference between saying that something would be a waste and saying that it shouldn't be a priority. The first implies that there will be absolutely no benefit, while the second indicates that some items need to be done before something else can be done. Never is different from we will explore it after we do other things first.

There is a very distinctive difference between the two. So please consider the word choice before dismissing what I have to say with a predetermined bullet point.

Fishing could be more interesting, I support that idea, but there are many other items that need to be addressed before we can reach that point.

spartaxoxo · January 27

VoxAdActa wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It would be a one time thing and it can easily be small in scope.

That statement does not in any way describe the daydream version of fishing you're suggesting. The changes required for your specific suggestion are massive.

How are the devs going to take the "fun fishers" seriously if the only things they can think of to "fix" fishing require a huge amount of effort (which I listed two posts ago) that only a few people will ever engage with?

The only reasonable thing the devs can take from the "fun fishers" in this thread is "change fishing somehow"; everything else is wild, impossible fantasy.

I seriously doubt it's massive considering that it's a common in even low budget, smaller games.

We're talking a few basic mechanics that are old as dirt to video games. A few items that don't require modeling and are just vendor trash. And a handful of the same basic rewards that they put in everything else anyway.

SilverBride · January 27

We can't create multiple "optional" features for every single system in the game. I can imagine what trying to meet up and play with a friend would be like.

Player 1: Do you want to go fish, or do some overland questing perhaps?

Player 2: Sure. What option are you using for these activities?

Player 1: I am normal difficulty for fishing and veteran difficulty for overland. What about you?

Player 2: I am veteran diffiuclty for fishing and normal difficulty for overland.

Player 1: I guess we can't play together afterall.

disky · January 27

Elvenheart wrote: »

If I wanted to play a fishing mini-game like the one in Star Dew Valley I'd go to Star Dew Valley to play it, not ask for ZOS to make fishing in this game like fishing in Star Dew Valley

I never asked for Stardew. I deliberately didn't ask for anything in particular, because all I really want is an improvement on what I believe to be a nothing experience.

Elvenheart wrote: »

I think what the OP is taking as negativity is just a feeling of, "Hey, we like our game the way it is, why do you keep wanting to change so many aspects of it to make it more fun for YOU?"

Because that's what forums like this are for. I understand disagreement but it's the way people on this forum recoil in horror over anything at all that gets me, and it's not just over player suggestions, but a lot of what ZOS does too. I just wish fewer people took an immediately closed-minded approach to a topic.

wolfie1.0. · January 27

spartaxoxo wrote: »

disky wrote: »

thorwyn wrote: »

I never really spent too much time fishing, because I find it boring and non-rewarding. Even the addition of mini games as suggested by OP would not change that, so I'm indifferent about it.

However, I would like to add one thought to the discussion that's nagging on me each time I read the forum. Whenever someone is proposing a change to the game, there is an impressively high chance that they will go defensive and play the "but it would just be optional" card at some point. On the surface, "optional" is a one-size-fits-all argument, designed to eliminate any tension between different opinions, but in reality, it is just a passive aggressive attempt at protecting the proposed changes against critical arguments and make each and every idea equally valid, regardless how absurd it may be. "I want flying penguins with rocket launchers? Don't like it? Switch it off!". See? Now YOU are the one to blame if you don't like the change.

While options sound nice and dandy in theory, they can potentially create a matrix of decisions, especially when each and every minor aspect of the game is drowned in more choices and selections than a tuna sandwich at Subways. Whenever ZOS adds a new feature or a QoL improvement of some sorts, a good portion of the player base is not (and will never be) even aware of the additions. Another huge part of the players just don't care and pick whatever is the default option. And a small minority of people are actually using the feature, sometimes complaining about how few people are using the feature. And you think that an option for an activity like fishing would make a difference? Think about extended group finder, think about the "what's that strange icon over my head" mystery and the list goes on.

So my point is: if you propose changes to the game, defend your ideas, convince the community and don't try to bail out from the discussion by using the but-it's-optional trope. It's not helpful.
Just to make this clear, this little rant is not meant to be against OP and his/her ideas.

Because it's the only possible way there is to get anything past the wall of negativity on this forum. Every single time I present something it's just endless hate. I'm trying to at least give people a way in to considering possibilities without their minds shutting down and instantly hating it. This forum is extremely conservative.

I know you're in the overland thread and I have to say that it makes the most sense there by far, and that is where I spend most of my time discussing an optional feature, but the fact is that I don't really think this should be optional. If it has to be, that's fine, but frankly I've tried making other suggestions here and while there have been some nice, constructive comments in this thread, it's always primarily negativity, and I'm just tired of the endless fight to defend an idea. I guess I'll just stop, which sucks, because I think there are a lot of ways this game could improve and I'd like to talk about them without needing to consider whether or not I want to wade into the kind of discussion we're having now.

Yeah. I actually think it's the opposite of avoiding criticism or feedback specific to your idea. It's the only way to get feedback or criticism specific to your idea.

Otherwise all the comments are "Nothing should ever change. It's good because I like it. I like it because it's good." And there is absolutely no feedback specific to the idea itself. It sometimes feels like we aren't playing a live service game which is a genre of game that makes improvements on existing systems all the time.

Making many improvements opt in allows for people who enjoy something as it currently to continue to enjoy it. And while I understand ZOS often doesn't take that route, that's not on the players giving the feedback. A post isn't going to automatically change anything.

Edit

Although to be fair OP, if the only thing to discuss is "I don't like it," there's really not much else to say beyond "I like it" or "I don't."

If no ideas are presented other than something need to change, then it won't change. I admit that sometimes I feel like I have to take a very very hard stance on ideas because one of the key problems I have with how ZOS implements changes often comes across as:

Low effort half made ideas

Overly monetized

Forced Implementation of something half the players don't want

Implementation of something that players suggested but contorted/misunderstood the actual desire into something completely different.

Or lastly it's just broken with bugs or it's too overpowering.

So please understand that when I am critical of some new idea my goal is often to press it so that ZOS and others can see the downsides of the new idea so we can try to avoid the pitfalls of the past ones.

VoxAdActa · January 27

disky wrote: »

See, this is exactly why I didn't provide a specific idea. It doesn't matter what I say, this will be the response.

And even knowing that, you didn't think that maybe you're getting this specific response because the idea (such as it is) would be very, very unpopular?

Or did that even factor in to the decision-making process? Well, I mean, it did at least factor in a little; you mentioned Stardew Valley as a model but steadfastly refused to describe that model because it would be dramatically rejected if people knew precisely what was being suggested.

VoxAdActa · January 27

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I seriously doubt it's massive considering that it's a common in even low budget, smaller games.

You're asking for all new equipment (fishing gear), all new equipment slots (or all new mechanics for an existing slot), new loot, new loot tables/balancing, new fish, and new achievements, on top of a whole new system of interacting with the world.

Yeah, totally not massive. An afternoon of work at most.