Overland Content Feedback Thread
-
VoxAdActa✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »
They already have zone specific buffs and debuffs, and can already apply these to individuals. So, I'm unsure why you think a slider would be so impossible.
We don't know what they'll do. But the last time they discussed they were working on their own thing, they specifically cited sliders as the example request. Meanwhile, all the times they said no, they cited a separate instance as having previously nearly killed the game and continued to talk about how they've learned that player separation isn't a good thing during gold road promo.
So, I think something none of us have even thought of is likely. But, I also think a slider is possible too.
They exist in all of their single player games. And in another MMO (LOTRO). I'm not sure why a standard game design feature is being painted as mythical.
Because it is mythical. None of their single player games are built on the same engine as ESO, and neither is LOTRO (which is doing fantastic, I guess?). There is nothing in this game that gives any indication that a slider could even work. It's fantasy speculation.
Proposing this hypothetical "make it optional" is the MMO equivalent of "assume a perfectly spherical object in a frictionless vacuum." Sure, in that wild, impossible world, nobody could ever complain, and it's presented that way specifically to attempt to eliminate all complaints. But it's not real, and it won't happen.Edited by VoxAdActa on February 28, 2025 8:52PM3 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Because it is mythical. None of their single player games are built on the same engine as ESO, and neither is LOTRO (which is doing fantastic, I guess?). There is nothing in this game that gives any indication that a slider could even work. It's fantasy speculation.
Proposing this hypothetical "make it optional" is the MMO equivalent of "assume a perfectly spherical object in a frictionless vacuum." Sure, in that wild, impossible world, nobody could ever complain, and it's presented that way specifically to attempt to eliminate all complaints. But it's not real, and it won't happen.
It doesn't need to be built on the same engine when we're talking about something that is an industry wise standard feature across many, many games. And is using things that already exists in this game in a different way. We already have zone specific buffs and debuffs. We already have individual buffs and debuffs. There is zero indication that it would be impossible to do.
This is like saying Walmart couldn't possibly sell cherries because it doesn't yet.
I think it's a trojan horse for "I don't want vet players to have an option," to be quite honest. It's easy to paint an optional difficulty increase as unreasonable if you just claim everything is a fairy tale.Edited by spartaxoxo on February 28, 2025 8:59PM3 -
VoxAdActa✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »
It doesn't need to be built on the same engine when we're talking about something that is an industry wise standard feature across many, many games. And is using things that already exists in this game in a different way. We already have zone specific buffs and debuffs. We already have individual buffs and debuffs. There is zero indication that it would be impossible to do.
This is like saying Walmart couldn't possibly sell cherries because it doesn't yet.
I think it's a trojan horse for "I don't want vet players to have an option," to be quite honest. It's easy to paint an optional difficulty increase as unreasonable if you just claim everything is a fairy tale.
"Other games do it" is not evidence that this game can do it. Other games also have quicktime events, free flight, city-building, and are built of 100% destructible environment. Does that mean you honestly believe ESO could also do all of those things?
Ok, sure. In your hypothetical world that we have no evidence for the practicality of implementing in this game—and, in fact, no evidence for the possibility of implementing in this game—there's no reason for anyone to complain. Nobody is complaining about fully 100% optional content that doesn't give the people playing it an advantage (in resources, exp gain, loot, cosmetics, etc.) over the people who don't. In a world where making the whole game the same difficulty as Vat is enough of a reward/incentive to play it all by itself, and is totally optional, and doesn't suck too much dev time away from the actually important issues, and doesn't impact server performance at all, there is no reason to say no to it.
But none of that is real. What we're actually discussing is a change to everyone's overland experience. Which is far, far more likely to happen than the above, for a wide variety of reasons that range from technical to practical. I'm not engaging with the hypothetical frictionless vacuum world, so please assume that any comment I make is not about frictionless vacuum world. There's nothing to complain about regarding frictionless vacuum world, because it's been specifically designed, piece by hypothetical piece, to eliminate any form of valid criticism.4 -
disky✭✭✭✭✭
They already do build challenging, engaging content. I guess the problem is that content is too challenging, in that it's hard to do solo.
I'm not sure how we expect ZOS to find the balance between "hard enough to keep me engaged, but still easy enough that I don't have to interact with anyone to complete it."
I'm talking about overland, this thread is about overland. I'm not interested in alternatives. I'm here for the kind of game that Elder Scrolls has traditionally been, not dungeons and trials.4 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭But none of that is real.
And yet optional is exactly what a streamer teased after having talked with ZOS about the upcoming changes. And ZOS has already stated multiple times that they would not want to chase players away and that player separation is bad.
We have zero evidence forced being "the only real" way forward.
Edit
What you're actually doing is assigning forced to everyone in this thread and arguing against that. But, many of us want difficulty options and that is what we're discussing.Edited by spartaxoxo on February 28, 2025 10:00PM2 -
VoxAdActa✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »stated multiple times... that player separation is bad.
Exactly. So no "vet instance." All we have left is this "slider" thing people just imagined into existence, or some combination of self-debuffs that definitely don't introduce a whole host of new problems for players with different levels of debuff interacting with the world in concert with each other.What you're actually doing is assigning forced to everyone in this thread and arguing against that. But, many of us want difficulty options and that is what we're discussing.
No, what I'm actually doing is refusing to engage with the most utopian possible version of this "feature" because there's nothing there to engage with. Again, it's been built specifically to eliminate any argument against it.
Nothing I say in any part of this thread, or anywhere on this forum, is directly engaging with that hypothetical ideal situation. I reject the entire premise of frictionless vacuum world, and will not interact with it except to express my intense skepticism that such a thing could ever exist in reality.
So when I say "this is a problem and I don't like it," I'm not talking about frictionless vacuum world.
Edited by VoxAdActa on February 28, 2025 10:26PM3 -
VoxAdActa✭✭✭✭✭
I'm talking about overland, this thread is about overland. I'm not interested in alternatives. I'm here for the kind of game that Elder Scrolls has traditionally been, not dungeons and trials.
So am I. You want overland to be difficult enough that you're challenged, but not so difficult that you have to group for it, which I infer because the available group content is not a valid solution to the issue of "not enough challenge."2 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Exactly. So no "vet instance." All we have left is this "slider" thing people just imagined into existence, or some combination of self-debuffs that definitely don't introduce a whole host of new problems for players with different levels of debuff interacting with the world in concert with each other.
People didn't imagine it into existence. It is a pre-existing feature in other games across the industry. People asked for it in this game. And at the time, the devs rejected because they were worried about different settings creating problems with world integration. Because there are actually cons to the ideas besides the fake con of it being completely impossible based on absolutely nothing.
But, since then they have responded more positively towards the idea. They said that they know that it's something players want and they are working on something undisclosed.Edited by spartaxoxo on February 28, 2025 10:32PM3 -
VoxAdActa✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »It is a pre-existing feature in other games across the industry.
So are underwater exploration, precise platforming, FPS-style combat, city destruction, climbing mechanics, multiple followers, in-depth stealth mechanics incorporating light and shadow and sound, city-level economy management, strength/dexterity/wisdom/etc. ability scores, fully destructable ground/rock, and flowing capes. Just existing in some other game somewhere does not automatically make it possible in ESO.
Edited by VoxAdActa on February 28, 2025 10:54PM3 -
disky✭✭✭✭✭
So am I. You want overland to be difficult enough that you're challenged, but not so difficult that you have to group for it, which I infer because the available group content is not a valid solution to the issue of "not enough challenge."
As I said, the current spate of group content isn't something I'm concerned with and it's not what this thread is about. I'm tired of being told to go find something else to do when the thing I want to do is available but not satisfying, especially when an equitable solution is possible. It has nothing to do with groups, although I'd be fine with it if ZOS provided a level of difficulty that made grouping a more common element.
I'm as interested in overland as you are, maybe even more so. I just want to enjoy it in the way that feels satisfying for me, and I'm not telling you that you can't keep what you have. So why are you telling me that I can't have what I want?Edited by disky on February 28, 2025 11:07PM2 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
So are underwater exploration, precise platforming, FPS-style combat, city destruction, climbing mechanics, multiple followers, in-depth stealth mechanics incorporating light and shadow and sound, city-level economy management, strength/dexterity/wisdom/etc. ability scores, fully destructable ground/rock, and flowing capes. Just existing in some other game somewhere does not automatically make it possible in ESO.
I never said that it did. In fact, I also pointed towards other evidence such as it literally already existing in this game as evidence.
The evidence for it being possible were
It's an industry wide standard
It already exists in game in the form of battle spirit, zone wide buffs (e.g. Craglorn), level up hidden buffs, and individual buffs/debuffs.
Developer statements that the reason they weren't doing it because it interfered with their design goal of every one having the same settings. This is very notable because when something is flat out impossible and not merely undesired, they tell us, as in the example of flowing capes.
The evidence against it be possible were
Philosophy class metaphors about cows
And that's it. Unless you have some actual evidence to back up the claim that it is not technically possible, the argument does not hold water.Edited by spartaxoxo on February 28, 2025 11:27PM3 -
sans-culottes✭✭✭✭✭
So are underwater exploration, precise platforming, FPS-style combat, city destruction, climbing mechanics, multiple followers, in-depth stealth mechanics incorporating light and shadow and sound, city-level economy management, strength/dexterity/wisdom/etc. ability scores, fully destructable ground/rock, and flowing capes. Just existing in some other game somewhere does not automatically make it possible in ESO.
Not currently in ESO doesn’t necessarily mean impossible in ESO, either. But these examples are very different things than some sort of way to adjust difficulty. By refusing to engage with others’ thoughts about what’s already mostly speculative—and I say “mostly” because we know there’s “something,” but that’s all—it makes having a conversation challenging, given that all of this is speculative. Engaging with someone else’s ideas, even if you find them unreasonable, is just giving them the same respect we all deserve in a conversation.Edited by sans-culottes on February 28, 2025 11:27PM6 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭old_scopie1945 wrote: »There is a link below. Timed @ 3:40.
https://youtu.be/jZ7E_X_byD4...And one final point is that a lot of people were in my comments saying "increasing the overland difficulty is horrible! Never do that!" I just want to point out, that there are not going to make the mudcrabs have 100k health. That's not what they mean when they are talking about addressing overland content. It's either doing limited time incursion style events or maybe a random base game zone gets invaded and all the players can go over there and fight in a trial-esque style boss fight, you know in an incursion style event. That's not the same as like "now the mudcrabs have 100k health." There was also conversations about allowing you to do higher difficulties but these would all be self-imposed things. Its' not instead of being able to one shot chickens down the road, well now the chickens have one million health like they do in the real world. And they'll attack you like they do in the real world. BTW don't wear red around chickens. They hate it.
A streamer teasing what was coming after they dropped the studio letter. We don't know how much of this changed since their conversation about their thoughts, how much he knows, etc. So, can't treat this the same as a developer statement.
But given all the developer statements repeatedly against the idea of forced difficulty, it seems highly unlikely they've done a 180. And we know the streamer was right about the incursions being updated.2 -
sans-culottes✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »
A streamer teasing what was coming after they dropped the studio letter. We don't know how much of this changed since their conversation about their thoughts, how much he knows, etc. So, can't treat this the same as a developer statement.
But given all the developer statements repeatedly against the idea of forced difficulty, it seems highly unlikely they've done a 180. And we know the streamer was right about the incursions being updated.
Thanks for posting this. Given all the tools available for playing with difficulty, this comes as no great surprise. Looking forward to seeing what they come up with—especially if the self-imposed difficulty that may or may not happen takes a page from IA or LotRO.
0 -
VoxAdActa✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »
I never said that it did. In fact, I also pointed towards other evidence such as it literally already existing in this game as evidence.
The evidence for it being possible were
It's an industry wide standard
It already exists in game in the form of battle spirit, zone wide buffs (e.g. Craglorn), level up hidden buffs, and individual buffs/debuffs.
Developer statements that the reason they weren't doing it because it interfered with their design goal of every one having the same settings. This is very notable because when something is flat out impossible and not merely desired, they tell us, as in the example of flowing capes.
The evidence against it be possible were
Philosophy class metaphors about cows
And that's it. Unless you have some actual evidence to back up the claim that it is not technically possible, the argument does not hold water.
"Industry-wide standard" is both an extreme exaggeration and also entirely irrelevant, even if it is true. It says absolutely nothing about whether it's possible in this game, like how jumping puzzles are an "industry wide" standard that would be entirely impossible without a massive overhaul to very foundational systems. Or, again, flowing capes, which are another "industry-wide standard." Once more, just because a thing exists in some other games, or even in every other game in the whole world, is not evidence that it's possible in this game.
Personal debuffs are not a "slider," and come with a wide set of their own implementation problems (which we're supposed to assume will take no extra dev time or attention to implement, and will have no impact whatsoever on server performance).
Dev comments saying "we're not doing it" is not an admission that they could do it with their current level of resources, technology debt, and time.
You're the one claiming it's possible. You're the one responsible for proving it. So far, your only proof has been "Other games do it!" while discounting all the myriad things other games also do that ESO can't.
I'm saying it's not possible because that's the null hypothesis. You want me to reject the null hypothesis, you have to give me a reason to reject the null hypothesis beyond "other games do it."
And that's entirely independent of the question of whether or not Zenimax will do it, which, for a wide variety of reasons, I do not believe they will, and can only be convinced they will by seeing them actually release it on a live server (without performance impacts or delaying dev cycles).
I don't care about the frictionless vacuum world. It hasn't been constructed based on a thorough examination of the game code, netcode, and engine, which led anyone to say "This looks like it could be possible." It's been constructed to blunt and eliminate criticism of the idea of a harder (as in, Arena-harder) overland experience. It's purely hypothetical vaporware that I, once again, refuse to engage with.
And this is the last time I will be engaging with the argument that I should engage with utopian, ideal scenarios that came into being as a way to deflect valid criticism.2 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭sans-culottes wrote: »Thanks for posting this. Given all the tools available for playing with difficulty, this comes as no great surprise. Looking forward to seeing what they come up with—especially if the self-imposed difficulty that may or may not happen takes a page from IA or LotRO.
I wouldn't be surprised if it takes a page from IA and allows us to impose debuffs on ourselves in a similar fashion as we can accept verses/visions in infinite archive personally. But, we won't know exactly what they'll do until they do it! I can't wait until they finally show us something. Making us wait until April is so frustrating. But, I also understand they wouldn't want to tease something that ultimately doesn't make the final cut, either. Like, I get it. But, the waiting is agony haha.
2 -
VoxAdActa✭✭✭✭✭
As I said, the current spate of group content isn't something I'm concerned with and it's not what this thread is about. I'm tired of being told to go find something else to do when the thing I want to do is available but not satisfying, especially when an equitable solution is possible. It has nothing to do with groups, although I'd be fine with it if ZOS provided a level of difficulty that made grouping a more common element.
I'm as interested in overland as you are, maybe even more so. I just want to enjoy it in the way that feels satisfying for me, and I'm not telling you that you can't keep what you have. So why are you telling me that I can't have what I want?
Because what you want is directly contrary to what I want.
You want to have content that does not require groups but is sufficiently challenging to keep you engaged, and you want it to be the content that serves as a gate-lock for literally all the other content in the game. In order to do anything else, from picking flowers to gearing for trials, I have to do arena-level hardmode overland, which is at least 85% of playing the game at all.
I simply won't do it. The choice for Zenimax is do they want players like me and my family, or do they want players like you and your peer group? They cannot have both (outside of the hypothetical frictionless vacuum solutions).2 -
TaSheen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »
I wouldn't be surprised if it takes a page from IA and allows us to impose debuffs on ourselves in a similar fashion as we can accept verses/visions in infinite archive personally. But, we won't know exactly what they'll do until they do it! I can't wait until they finally show us something. Making us wait until April is so frustrating. But, I also understand they wouldn't want to tease something that ultimately doesn't make the final cut, either. Like, I get it. But, the waiting is agony haha.
For me as well, because I'm sorry to say that I have some real doubts that whatever they choose to do will be anything that will make my gaming situation easier. And in fact, though you might like to believe streamer vaporware, I don't believe it. I'm expecting that I will be returning to Skyrim and Oblivion permanently once the bomb detonates in April.______________________________________________________
"But even in books, the heroes make mistakes, and there isn't always a happy ending." Mercedes Lackey, Into the West
PC NA, PC EU (non steam)- four accounts, many alts....4 -
sans-culottes✭✭✭✭✭
For me as well, because I'm sorry to say that I have some real doubts that whatever they choose to do will be anything that will make my gaming situation easier. And in fact, though you might like to believe streamer vaporware, I don't believe it. I'm expecting that I will be returning to Skyrim and Oblivion permanently once the bomb detonates in April.
What is it you’re expecting? It’s just as speculative to assume that there’s going to be a massive, universal increase in the difficulty. If you need new game recommendations, then do know that there are many wonderful games released every year, too.Edited by sans-culottes on February 28, 2025 11:48PM0 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
For me as well, because I'm sorry to say that I have some real doubts that whatever they choose to do will be anything that will make my gaming situation easier. And in fact, though you might like to believe streamer vaporware, I don't believe it. I'm expecting that I will be returning to Skyrim and Oblivion permanently once the bomb detonates in April.
In my experience with streamers, they often get sneak previews or are let in on discussions prior to things being built. They tend to not know finer details because things change in development. But they are usually accurate about the broad strokes of future plans, especially ones that are very near future. Companies let them get a taste of what's to come to help with advertisement and hype building.
He's already been accurate about the incursions coming up. So, I don't really have reason to doubt him this time.
I think a lot of the skepticism is rooted in fear of being pushed out. I think a lot of people are nervous that the upcoming plans are going to ruin the game. So, I really think they should tease something rather than let people's fears run rampant. It is creating the opposite of hype. It's killing enthusiasm.
ETA
He was accurate about the broad strokes of incursions, idk about the finer details.Edited by spartaxoxo on February 28, 2025 11:56PM3 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Because what you want is directly contrary to what I want.
No. It isn't. You want to be able to enjoy the game the way it is. And most of us want you to be able to do the same. Regardless of your opinion about how feasible it is, it is completely inaccurate to say that it is what Disky or almost anyone else in this thread wants. Most of the people in this thread prefer difficulty increases to be optional.Edited by spartaxoxo on February 28, 2025 11:55PM4 -
TaSheen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭sans-culottes wrote: »
What is it you’re expecting? It’s just as speculative to assume that there’s going to be a massive, universal increase in the difficulty. If you need new game recommendations, then do know that there are many wonderful games released every year, too.
I have YEARS of experience with the devs. None of that experience gives me any feeling that this is going to work out well for me or others who are perfectly happy with overland as is.
I don't play anything but TES. It's my home universe, has been since Arena released. So, I'll quite happily go back to Skyrim and Oblivion. I didn't mean that statement to sound as if it would be onerous.______________________________________________________
"But even in books, the heroes make mistakes, and there isn't always a happy ending." Mercedes Lackey, Into the West
PC NA, PC EU (non steam)- four accounts, many alts....3 -
sans-culottes✭✭✭✭✭
"Industry-wide standard" is both an extreme exaggeration and also entirely irrelevant, even if it is true. It says absolutely nothing about whether it's possible in this game, like how jumping puzzles are an "industry wide" standard that would be entirely impossible without a massive overhaul to very foundational systems. Or, again, flowing capes, which are another "industry-wide standard." Once more, just because a thing exists in some other games, or even in every other game in the whole world, is not evidence that it's possible in this game.
Personal debuffs are not a "slider," and come with a wide set of their own implementation problems (which we're supposed to assume will take no extra dev time or attention to implement, and will have no impact whatsoever on server performance).
Dev comments saying "we're not doing it" is not an admission that they could do it with their current level of resources, technology debt, and time.
You're the one claiming it's possible. You're the one responsible for proving it. So far, your only proof has been "Other games do it!" while discounting all the myriad things other games also do that ESO can't.
I'm saying it's not possible because that's the null hypothesis. You want me to reject the null hypothesis, you have to give me a reason to reject the null hypothesis beyond "other games do it."
And that's entirely independent of the question of whether or not Zenimax will do it, which, for a wide variety of reasons, I do not believe they will, and can only be convinced they will by seeing them actually release it on a live server (without performance impacts or delaying dev cycles).
I don't care about the frictionless vacuum world. It hasn't been constructed based on a thorough examination of the game code, netcode, and engine, which led anyone to say "This looks like it could be possible." It's been constructed to blunt and eliminate criticism of the idea of a harder (as in, Arena-harder) overland experience. It's purely hypothetical vaporware that I, once again, refuse to engage with.
And this is the last time I will be engaging with the argument that I should engage with utopian, ideal scenarios that came into being as a way to deflect valid criticism.
So you expect folks to accept your opinions and engage with them, but you refuse to even engage with anything other than what you’re saying their opinions actually are? Once again, given that there are many existing tools to adjust difficulty already in place, this doesn’t take Pollyanna to envision.
Edited by sans-culottes on February 28, 2025 11:56PM6 -
TaSheen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »
In my experience with streamers, they often get sneak previews or are let in on discussions prior to things being built. They tend to not know finer details because things change in development. But they are usually accurate about the broad strokes of future plans, especially ones that are very near future. Companies let them get a taste of what's to come to help with advertisement and hype building.
He's already been accurate about the incursions coming up. So, I don't really have reason to doubt him this time.
I think a lot of the skepticism is rooted in fear of being pushed out. I think a lot of people are nervous that the upcoming plans are going to ruin the game. So, I really think they should tease something rather than let people's fears run rampant. It is creating the opposite of hype. It's killing enthusiasm.
Having a zone I'm in turned into a "war zone" (as happened various times with WoW and RIFT, and was ultimately one major reason I left them both) wouldn't make me happy at all. Seriously, I hope you get what YOU want, even if I don't. Because I will be quite happy to return to the older games....
______________________________________________________
"But even in books, the heroes make mistakes, and there isn't always a happy ending." Mercedes Lackey, Into the West
PC NA, PC EU (non steam)- four accounts, many alts....0 -
sans-culottes✭✭✭✭✭
I have YEARS of experience with the devs. None of that experience gives me any feeling that this is going to work out well for me or others who are perfectly happy with overland as is.
I don't play anything but TES. It's my home universe, has been since Arena released. So, I'll quite happily go back to Skyrim and Oblivion. I didn't mean that statement to sound as if it would be onerous.
I mean, I’ve also got like a decade of experience with them. Have I agreed with everything they’ve done? No, definitely not, but I also don’t think they’ve made lots of bad choices.
If you’re not happy with the direction of the game and are content with the alternatives, then that’s great. However, even Frances discovered that other things beyond bread and jam were tasty, too
PS. Since you mentioned RIFT and WoW, you’re obviously not limiting yourself “just” to TES. Maybe I’m misunderstanding—maybe it’s more just that your TES “home”? Not to derail us—I just think it’s interesting to get a feel for where we’re all coming from. Edited by sans-culottes on March 1, 2025 12:08AM1 -
TaSheen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭sans-culottes wrote: »
I mean, I’ve also got like a decade of experience with them. Have I agreed with everything they’ve done? No, definitely not, but I also don’t think they’ve made lots of bad choices.
If you’re not happy with the direction of the game and are content with the alternatives, then that’s great. However, even Frances discovered that other things beyond bread and jam were tasty, too.
Uh. Who's Frances?______________________________________________________
"But even in books, the heroes make mistakes, and there isn't always a happy ending." Mercedes Lackey, Into the West
PC NA, PC EU (non steam)- four accounts, many alts....0 -
VoxAdActa✭✭✭✭✭sans-culottes wrote: »
So you expect folks to accept your opinions and engage with them, but you refuse to even engage with anything other than what you’re saying their opinions actually are? Once again, given that there are many existing tools to adjust difficulty already in place, this doesn’t take Pollyanna to envision.
I mean, that's not at all what I said, but sure, we'll roll with that. Yes. I expect other people to engage in a discussion about reality as it currently sits, given the objectively difficult technical requirements and the past performance of ZOS in implementing major changes to the game (past performance being the most accurate predictor of future performance).
I will not engage in fantastical perfect-world theorizing, which requires ignoring all of the technical limitations and all of the previous design philosophy of the company.1 -
sans-culottes✭✭✭✭✭
Uh. Who's Frances?
Lol Bread and Jam for Frances was one of a series of old children’s books. I’ve never forgotten that one, because she only eats bread and jam in that book.
But all this to say, I hope whatever changes are in store don’t affect your enjoyment of ESO, too.Edited by sans-culottes on March 1, 2025 12:12AM0 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Personal debuffs are not a "slider," and come with a wide set of their own implementation problems (which we're supposed to assume will take no extra dev time or attention to implement, and will have no impact whatsoever on server performance).
The null hypothesis is actually that they can do what every other game can do.
You're actually the one that claimed it was impossible from a technical perspective. I said that they should do it and then you made the claim that it was not feasible. When asked to back up the claim, you've declined to provide anything. You made the claim that my idea is not technically possible. You're the one that brought the tech into it. Not me. I said it would be nice if we could have a feature from another game. That's it.
So, the burden of proof is on you to prove your statement that it's not feasible. I used evidence to show it was not Pollyanna thinking. Neither of us have the technical specs so the best we can do is point to similar things such as similar systems in this game, or successful implementation in others. Which I have done. So, are you going to back your claim that it's not technically possible? Or can we dispense with the idea that anyone should be making this argument when none of us are developers in this game?Edited by spartaxoxo on March 1, 2025 12:13AM4 -
sans-culottes✭✭✭✭✭
I mean, that's not at all what I said, but sure, we'll roll with that. Yes. I expect other people to engage in a discussion about reality as it currently sits, given the objectively difficult technical requirements and the past performance of ZOS in implementing major changes to the game (past performance being the most accurate predictor of future performance).
I will not engage in fantastical perfect-world theorizing, which requires ignoring all of the technical limitations and all of the previous design philosophy of the company.
Cool, so glad you’re willing to engage in discussions about tools like opt-in debuffs, etc. Since these already exist, the only hindrance really is what sorts of speculation we’re “allowed” to engage in. 2