800k people don't seem to mind difficult overworld

Cireous

Still waiting on the addition of an "Increase damage done to player in the Overland by 300% while increasing XP gain by 5%" Mythic. I'm just making up a percentage there, but something to that effect would solve this issue for me. I just want to feel something, Rich.

Amottica

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

A player specifically asked for an option to give people the choice, to which Rich replied that it is not as simple as just flip a switch. Neither specifically used the word "toggle" but that is exactly what is being described.

So I listened to more of the stream and yes, someone did ask a follow up question. The original question was:

Jeulen: "Could we please get a vet mode for delves? and quests..."

Rich: "So, we had that, Jeulen, at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out and we put the challenge into world bosses and into solo arenas and into dungeons and trials."

But then a few questions later Jeulen asks the follow up I missed before:

Jeulen: "Would it be an option to give people a choice?"

Rich: "Uh, it is not as simple as just flip a switch and make things more difficult. There is a ton of work, and then as lucky mentioned earlier you have to also incentivize that. Like just making something more difficult for no reason, if you're not going to get anything out of it why do it, you know? The satisfaction is there sure, but players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time. So like I said, we went down that route. We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3 of the game was never played by players, so we changed it."

So, to be completely fair and honest, Rich says no to veteran only zones like they were before with Cadwell's Silver and Gold. Then when asked about an OPTION he doesn't explicitly say no, but rather sort of talks about how it would be a lot of work. Then he reiterates why they changed the original veteran only mode.

My interpretation of this is that they don't necessarily want to invest the time and effort to do it, but if the numbers start to show that a lot of people are asking for a difficulty slider they might consider it.

It’s becoming rather clear that you’re now cherry picking points in trying to thread the needle and that there is room for a toggle.

You completely skipped over the middle of what he said in between which I posted here before in full.

“People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff. I get that there’s a lot of people that do like the harder difficulty, but a HUGE portion of our player base just wants to do story, and they don’t want to have to struggle with difficult things.”

“I totally hear you on the difficulty thing. I like things to be more difficult. But the data doesn’t lie. And we have never been more successful than where we are today. And a lot of that has to do with just how much freedom players have to go an experience story.”

“And yes, go look at Craglorn. There’s not a lot of people in Craglorn and that’s not super difficult but it’s more hard than the regular overland.”

"Uh, it is not as simple as just flip a switch and make things more difficult. There is a ton of work, and then as lucky mentioned earlier you have to also incentivize that. Like just making something more difficult for no reason, if you're not going to get anything out of it why do it, you know? The satisfaction is there sure, but players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time. So like I said, we went down that route. We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3 of the game was never played by players, so we changed it.”


It’s extremely clear that a toggle and returning to an overland with increased difficulty are not in the cards. To this day Craglorn isn’t played by the population an amount anywhere close to the other zones. To this day people don’t want to do Imperial City or the Cyrodiil zone quests because of the artificial difficulty spike created by other players.

I’m sorry that you want to find a silver lining but it doesn’t exist. After 8 years, over 25 billion hours of live testing (several years of at least 1 million players playing regularly), millions of hours of pts and beta testing, and financial results both negative and positive, the ship has sailed.

I took it more that they were hopeful that someday the player's interests may change enough for Zenimax to reconsider this. However, that hope does not align well with the realities of an MMORPG game in the long run. It also does not align well with the changes that have made ESO the major success it is today. This includes dropping a subscription requirement which tends to open the door to more casual players.

Callosum

Are we really the minority? Referring to the comments

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvPs3pT83N6EmNLlLrbwwMQ/community?lb=UgkxXkNL1oOYr-gSS06uk_HFsCpeTbT5sncZ

Franchise408

I don't why some people are so defensive over the idea of an *optional* toggle, which will not impact your gameplay in the least bit.

If you just want to play and relax, having less people in your instance will make it more relaxing when you have less people to deal with.

Whatever "better" rewards come from an optional vet overland will be marginal at best.

Me, and others, playing a more difficult instance will not make your instance anymore challenging.

The fact that it was said above that the "no" is softened so that we don't leave is an admission that this issue is large enough that people stop playing over it. If the amount of people that could potentially leave from it is significant enough that it needs to be protected against, then it is significant enough of a voice to present a legitimate issue.

In fact, the people arguing against the need for vet overland are actually arguing in favor of their point when they bring up the fact that vet players get their achievements, and gear, and never go back. If those vet players had a semi-challenging and engaging overland, then they could have countless amounts of content to continue logging in to explore and play through. But as it is, they play, get their gear, get their achievements, and then just not only don't go back to the content, but move on to the next new game. I know that I for one refuse to play anymore questing content due to how mind numbingly tedious and boring it is. What you call "relaxing" I call completely non-engaging in any capacity. Eventually, I'm just going to stop buying chapters and DLC's altogether because the content is not for me, and if I'm not buying DLC's and chapters, I have less incentive to continue logging in, and less incentive to keep paying my ESO+ sub. As it is, I only log in about once a week anymore regardless, for the weekly guild trial run that I lead. Other than that, I'm just about done with ESO, because it refuses to make any content for me.

It used to be a staple of MMO's and gaming in general that new content was designed for the players that had been playing it. It was higher level content designed for the veterans of the game. Of course there was always content for newer players to keep interest in growing the base, but it was also interested in retention as well. But with the current direction of content, the treatment of battlegrounds, the constant funneling into zones that nobody wants to play outside of events, and the way I see ZOS dismiss an entire segment of the player base simply because it's not the largest section, it tells me a lot about how ZOS sees me as a customer. And it's not in a positive light. "Keep paying us but stay quiet about it"

Well, keep ignoring us and treating us this way, and eventually even the most loyal and die hard of TES fans are going to be driven away when you continue telling them they don't matter.

I'm honestly not sure how much longer I'll have left with this game if I'm just supposed to stay in my cage of dungeons and trials and continue to be told that 80% of the game is not for me.

Amottica

Callosum wrote: »

Are we really the minority? Referring to the comments

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvPs3pT83N6EmNLlLrbwwMQ/community?lb=UgkxXkNL1oOYr-gSS06uk_HFsCpeTbT5sncZ

That poll tells us nothing. I do mean it tells us nothing since I merely see a poll with options. I do not see the "results." Even then it is far from showing worthy information since is not intended to try to get a good sample of the players.

jaws343

Franchise408 wrote: »

I don't why some people are so defensive over the idea of an *optional* toggle, which will not impact your gameplay in the least bit.

This is the biggest fallacy that comes up in these discussions.

Yes, in fact, it does impact the gameplay of players who do not want this.

The primary way this occurs is that dev time has to be allocated to implementing and maintaining this. Dev time that cannot be spent improving the game for the majority of the playerbase. That alone is enough for players to be concerned about this being implemented or even worked on.

TequilaFire

Not to mention the multitude of new bugs introduced.
I am waiting to see how these new overland roaming bosses are received.

Callosum

Amottica wrote: »

Callosum wrote: »

Are we really the minority? Referring to the comments

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvPs3pT83N6EmNLlLrbwwMQ/community?lb=UgkxXkNL1oOYr-gSS06uk_HFsCpeTbT5sncZ

That poll tells us nothing. I do mean it tells us nothing since I merely see a poll with options. I do not see the "results." Even then it is far from showing worthy information since is not intended to try to get a good sample of the players.

im not talking about the poll im talkning about the players who are commenting. Players on this forum this keeps calling a small minority but just within this week i have seen the three biggest streamers and content creators indicating the there's just nothing for them I the overland content anymore including the new upcoming content. Would say that Deltia is stating his view as well in that poll.

it's like you don't realize that we are paying costumers as well and paying for the content you love. The competition from other MMO's will increase a lot the next few years and If ESO loses their biggest streamers and players like us i will affect you and the content they will be able to create for you even though we like different parts of the game.

Callosum

jaws343 wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

I don't why some people are so defensive over the idea of an *optional* toggle, which will not impact your gameplay in the least bit.

This is the biggest fallacy that comes up in these discussions.

Yes, in fact, it does impact the gameplay of players who do not want this.

The primary way this occurs is that dev time has to be allocated to implementing and maintaining this. Dev time that cannot be spent improving the game for the majority of the playerbase. That alone is enough for players to be concerned about this being implemented or even worked on.

Seriously, this is why you don't want it? I'm pretty sure that the fact that ESO will eventually loss a lot of players and thereby income will affect you a lot more.

SilverBride

Franchise408 wrote: »

I don't why some people are so defensive over the idea of an *optional* toggle, which will not impact your gameplay in the least bit.

I gave valid reasons why this is a bad idea earlier in this thread, but will reiterate:

• It would separate the playerbase
• It would give an unfair advantage to end game players IF there were increased rewards and drops
• It would turn overland into end game content, which has never been its intended purpose
• It would take time, manpower and cost that is better spent on issues that would benefit everyone

Franchise408 wrote: »

Well, keep ignoring us and treating us this way, and eventually even the most loyal and die hard of TES fans are going to be driven away when you continue telling them they don't matter.

When I think of die hard TES fans I think of players who enjoy they story, and read all the quest dialogs, and surround themselves with the lore. I don't think of players who are only focused on difficult fights and better drops.

Franchise408 wrote: »

I'm honestly not sure how much longer I'll have left with this game if I'm just supposed to stay in my cage of dungeons and trials and continue to be told that 80% of the game is not for me.

Nothing is keeping any player from experiencing overland and the story. Easy questing zones with challenges in instanced dungeons and trials is pretty much the norm in MMO's. This is a formula that works. Why should it be any different here?

jaws343

Callosum wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

I don't why some people are so defensive over the idea of an *optional* toggle, which will not impact your gameplay in the least bit.

This is the biggest fallacy that comes up in these discussions.

Yes, in fact, it does impact the gameplay of players who do not want this.

The primary way this occurs is that dev time has to be allocated to implementing and maintaining this. Dev time that cannot be spent improving the game for the majority of the playerbase. That alone is enough for players to be concerned about this being implemented or even worked on.

Seriously, this is why you don't want it? I'm pretty sure that the fact that ESO will eventually loss a lot of players and thereby income will affect you a lot more.

From the actions and comments of the devs, I highly doubt that players who want more difficult overland content represent a lot of players. Those players could leave this game and it would be inconsequential, maybe even better for the community as a whole. If those players were anywhere near as representative as they think they are, this would be something Zos would be doing. They are not doing anything like this because those players are a small fraction of the community and not worth the efforts involved with implementing the functionality for only a small percent of people to actually engage with it.

It's the same reason they nerf DLC dungeons after like a year. The tiny fraction of end game community that likes beating their heads against difficult content clears it and doesn't return and the rest of the community doesn't engage with the content because it is too difficult. So these dungeons are avoided by the player base until they are more accessible.

Callosum

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

I don't why some people are so defensive over the idea of an *optional* toggle, which will not impact your gameplay in the least bit.

I gave valid reasons why this is a bad idea earlier in this thread, but will reiterate:

• It would separate the playerbase
• It would give an unfair advantage to end game players IF there were increased rewards and drops
• It would turn overland into end game content, which has never been its intended purpose
• It would take time, manpower and cost that is better spent on issues that would benefit everyone

Franchise408 wrote: »

Well, keep ignoring us and treating us this way, and eventually even the most loyal and die hard of TES fans are going to be driven away when you continue telling them they don't matter.

When I think of die hard TES fans I think of players who enjoy they story, and read all the quest dialogs, and surround themselves with the lore. I don't think of players who are only focused on difficult fights and better drops.

Franchise408 wrote: »

I'm honestly not sure how much longer I'll have left with this game if I'm just supposed to stay in my cage of dungeons and trials and continue to be told that 80% of the game is not for me.

Nothing is keeping any player from experiencing overland and the story. Easy questing zones with challenges in instanced dungeons and trials is pretty much the norm in MMO's. This is a formula that works. Why should it be any different here?

This would not even be close to separating the player base compared to how other MMO's are handling the difficulty scaling. Normally players of different levels are allocated in entirely different zones.

Do you think it is unfair that players are getting better loot in the already existing veteran content as well?

No, it would not even be close to turning overland in the endgame it would simply just make it worth it.

More players leaving means less money for the content that you like. Our money actually maters for the content that you want if you haven't realized it.

WhyMustItBe

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Yes. The dev team has said no over and over again.

This is just wrong, and while I respect your opinion that you don't want veteran mode, you are trying to pass your own opinion off as absolute fact when it is demonstrably untrue.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

They smooth it over so it doesn’t sound hard and you don’t quit but it’s a very hard no on all fronts.

You are cherry picking what the devs said in order to tell people no as if any of us have a say. The fact is there were TWO SEPARATE QUESTIONS in the only source that was linked: 1) Can we have vet overland again like before One Tamriel, and 2) If not that what about a toggle?

You are intentionally treating the dev's answer to each question as if there was only one. That is either a misinterpretation on your part or intentionally dishonest. What they said was no to veteran ONLY zones like pre-One Tamriel, but as for the toggle all they said was essentially that it would be difficult.

That is not the same as no.

But you keep vehemently insisting that the devs said explicitly no to the possibility of a toggle as well which is simply false.

DagenHawk

It would be nice if dead horse topics like this would become against the TOS...[snip]

[edited for baiting]

Vhozek

DagenHawk wrote: »

It would be nice if dead horse topics like this would become against the TOS...[snip]

[snip] I'm dead serious.
[edited to remove quote]

Franchise408

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

I don't why some people are so defensive over the idea of an *optional* toggle, which will not impact your gameplay in the least bit.

I gave valid reasons why this is a bad idea earlier in this thread, but will reiterate:

• It would separate the playerbase
• It would give an unfair advantage to end game players IF there were increased rewards and drops
• It would turn overland into end game content, which has never been its intended purpose
• It would take time, manpower and cost that is better spent on issues that would benefit everyone

All of these points have been argued and shown to be wrong many times already.

1. The playerbase is already separated. Dungeons and trials are separated by normal and vet. Cyrodiil is separated into numerous campaigns for CP, No-CP, Under 50, etc. IC is separated. The overland zones are already separated into numerous instances. The playerbase is already separated, and separated playerbases will have no impact on overland, as grouping is actually detrimental in overland content. You don't need others, except for things like world bosses or dragons / harrowstorms / dolmen.
2. It would not give any sort of unfair advantage for the gear drops. The gear drops would simply be purple instead of blue. That is a minimal upgrade at best, and one that is not unavailable to people who don't play the higher level content, as upgrading gear is very easily done at a crafting station. So even by playing normal content, you will still have access to the drops that veteran overland will be getting. Nevermind the fact that 98% of overland gear drops are *not* significant for any sort of content where gear is important. Outside of maybe the Deshaan drops, nobody is using overland gear in higher end content.
3. It would not turn overland into end game content, because nobody is asking for overland to be turned into vet trial difficulty. And even if it was turned into end game content, non-vet overland players would still have their normal instance
4. Time, manpower, and costs are already being spent on issues that don't benefit everyone. I do not, and likely never will, have a companion. I think companions are a waste of content, and were a waste of time and resources. I have 0 interest in companions and will probably never get one. I would much prefer that time being spent on a vet overland instance. Performance in Cyrodiil still hasn't been fixed. The "in combat" bug still prevents progression through numerous dungeons. The weapon surfboard bug is back. Certain skills still aren't working consistently in PVP. So the time and resources are already being spent on issues that aren't benefitting everyone, so that's not a valid excuse. Nobody is going to like every single change.

Elsonso

DagenHawk wrote: »

It would be nice if dead horse topics like this would become against the TOS...[snip]

At this point, it is pretty much devolved into justifying made up scenarios, anyway.

[edited to remove quote]

trackdemon5512

It’s funny. All these players clamoring for difficulty sliders (they’re impossible for ESO btw) seem to forget that even after One Tamriel things weren’t all rosy.

Sure you could go to any zone you wanted and you weren’t gated from content or friends. But things were still not as forgiving and enjoyable as they are now.

Vet Dungeons for example were a challenge. I’m not talking the difference in World Boss difficulty versus Delve Boss. Vet Dungeons felt like trials and would drag out as such. Vet Fungal Grotto 2? Second boss is where any fun ended and people left group. And don’t get me started on Vet Imperial City Prison or Vet White Gold Tower.

When you’re selfish and put challenge ahead of everyone else in a group setting you are no longer playing an MMORPG. You basically want a Single Player RPG and everyone shouldn’t have to put up with that nonsense.

You can solo Kung Fu kitty in Southern Elsweyr? Good for you. Lvl 50s can’t. Heck I’d say 99% of the player base can’t. So when they come up to you at that boss and you’ve turned a damage slider to max difficulty, is it fair that they, not even being grouped with you, have to suffer time wise or ultimately futilely because you’re selfish and want to challenge yourself.

It’s like the kid that wants to run hardmode and keeps pulling the scroll in a vet dungeon yet the rest of the group is sick of it. Either the group disbands or we kick you out to get it done.

Players in the overworld can’t kick ya so they’re forced to abandon content and everything goes to hell. Selfish desires like increased personal difficulty have a compounding effect on group play from a sociological perspective. And the needs of the many outweigh the want of one.

You want solo hard content? Go solo a dungeon. Then solo it on vet. Then get every achievement in solo arenas. Then add to that challenge by finding 3 others and getting every vet achievement in dungeons/arenas. Then finish it off with every achievement for vet trials. And if you somehow do that, before a new DLC is released, we’ll then you’re in the 99.9999% of ESO players doing things the developers don’t expect the vast majority of players to do. And there is nothing else to do for ya except to tell you to nerf yourself.

[snip]
[edited for baiting]

WhyMustItBe

@trackdemon5512

What a total red herring argument. No one is talking about group content. People are not asking to force veteran zones on anyone. People are saying they would like an OPTION to do SOLO quest content in veteran mode by themselves. Yet you are calling them out as selfish, and citing group dungeons as a reason?

Then you resort to saying people who don't agree with you have a "god complex?"

Why can't you just accept that you have no say in what goes in the game, that other people have different opinions than you, and that it doesn't do you any harm for people to have an option to play the way they want?

Quelindor

Increasing combat difficulty is really good idea. So you can feel like doing real battle while killing mobs. All mechanics in this game worthless while you battle with mobs. Like hack and slash game. It must be challenging to fight with mobs.

SilverBride

Franchise408 wrote: »

1. The playerbase is already separated. Dungeons and trials are separated by normal and vet. Cyrodiil is separated into numerous campaigns for CP, No-CP, Under 50, etc. IC is separated. The overland zones are already separated into numerous instances. The playerbase is already separated, and separated playerbases will have no impact on overland, as grouping is actually detrimental in overland content. You don't need others, except for things like world bosses or dragons / harrowstorms / dolmen.

ESO uses a megaserver so there will be varying numbers of instances depending on how many are playing at the time. But you can easily group with a friend so you are both in the same instance, so you aren't really separated like you would be with specific separate overlands.

As far as dungeons and trials, these are for players seeking a challenge beyond the overland story and questing experience. They even have veteran options for the more experienced players. These have zero impact on overland.

Franchise408 wrote: »

It would not give any sort of unfair advantage for the gear drops. The gear drops would simply be purple instead of blue. That is a minimal upgrade at best, and one that is not unavailable to people who don't play the higher level content, as upgrading gear is very easily done at a crafting station.

That is a huge difference to a new player who may not have the skill or resources to upgrade their gear. Besides being extremely unfair that high CP, well geared players can get better drops playing through the basic story on a customized level that most of the playerbase would struggle at.

Franchise408 wrote: »

It would not turn overland into end game content

This is the goal for some players who have expressed dissatisfaction with forming dungeon and trial groups, and want to find their challenging content in overland instead.

Franchise408 wrote: »

Time, manpower, and costs are already being spent on issues that don't benefit everyone. I do not, and likely never will, have a companion. I think companions are a waste of content, and were a waste of time and resources. I have 0 interest in companions and will probably never get one. I would much prefer that time being spent on a vet overland instance.

Many players prefer having companions and have 0 interest in veteran overland. Companions actually have a purpose and benefit way more players than veteran overland would.

WhyMustItBe

SilverBride wrote: »

ESO uses a megaserver so there will be varying numbers of instances depending on how many are playing at the time. But you can easily group with a friend so you are both in the same instance, so you aren't really separated like you would be with specific separate overlands.

No reason this would change anything. If according to the anti-option people in this thread the number wanting a veteran toggle for solo content is so small, the player drain from normal shards should be proportionally tiny, should it not? Besides, there is no reason friends couldn't still group. They could either toggle off veteran mode before grouping, or have a prompt to set group difficulty to that of the party leader. Simple.

SilverBride wrote: »

That is a huge difference to a new player who may not have the skill or resources to upgrade their gear. Besides being extremely unfair that high CP, well geared players can get better drops playing through the basic story on a customized level that most of the playerbase would struggle at.

I think it is a pretty big stretch to call this difference "huge," even for a new player. Drops would still never come in gold which is the only tier that matters. As a new player on my 2nd account, I have hundreds/thousands of green/blue/purple improvement materials just from harvesting while casually leveling and doing quests. If you are in a guild (as any new player should be, up to 5), you can give those mats to a guild member and they will upgrade your stuff for free. Often they will straight craft better stuff than overland drops for you, with no charge using their mats up to purple. That's how much these rain down on you. The difference in blue vs. purple or green vs. blue quality drops is literally 10-20g selling to a vendor. Be still my heart!

SilverBride wrote: »

This is the goal for some players who have expressed dissatisfaction with forming dungeon and trial groups, and want to find their challenging content in overland instead.

Really? Who has stated in this thread that is their goal? I can't find one example of anyone asking for solo questing veteran mode being "end game" difficulty. On the contrary, people are mostly asking for an OPTIONAL toggle so they can play solo quest content on veteran difficulty (like it was at release, not some higher "end game" difficulty), strictly for their own personal enjoyment. It is much more fun (for some) making unique builds when the main content you face playing the game actually challenges you to have a strategy in doing so.

SilverBride wrote: »

Many players prefer having companions and have 0 interest in veteran overland. Companions actually have a purpose and benefit way more players than veteran overland would.

No matter what devs do some people will say they would rather they do something else, so "wasting dev time" is totally subjective and not relevant to the discussion. However, I would bet money that using existing sharding technology and pre-One Tamriel difficulty templates they already made to add a veteran mode option for solo questing content would take far less time/resources than designing the companion system from scratch, or scrying/antiquities, for example. Lots of people don't care for those either.

If the devs never did anything unless the entire player base wanted it, the devs would never do anything.

Adding an OPTIONAL toggle for veteran solo questing content would be good for the longevity of the game with proportionally minimal investment. This seems like a no-brainer to me and I have no doubt that when the devs realize just how much increasing demand there is for this, and that it doesn't affect other players that don't want it in any way, they will consider this a worthwhile addition.

Especially with games coming out that increasingly siphon away players that look for more engagement from the leveling/questing content.

There is nothing quite as demoralizing and anti-climactic as having a chapter-end quest boss melt in under 10 seconds.

Franchise408

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

1. The playerbase is already separated. Dungeons and trials are separated by normal and vet. Cyrodiil is separated into numerous campaigns for CP, No-CP, Under 50, etc. IC is separated. The overland zones are already separated into numerous instances. The playerbase is already separated, and separated playerbases will have no impact on overland, as grouping is actually detrimental in overland content. You don't need others, except for things like world bosses or dragons / harrowstorms / dolmen.

ESO uses a megaserver so there will be varying numbers of instances depending on how many are playing at the time. But you can easily group with a friend so you are both in the same instance, so you aren't really separated like you would be with specific separate overlands.

As far as dungeons and trials, these are for players seeking a challenge beyond the overland story and questing experience. They even have veteran options for the more experienced players. These have zero impact on overland.

Franchise408 wrote: »

It would not give any sort of unfair advantage for the gear drops. The gear drops would simply be purple instead of blue. That is a minimal upgrade at best, and one that is not unavailable to people who don't play the higher level content, as upgrading gear is very easily done at a crafting station.

That is a huge difference to a new player who may not have the skill or resources to upgrade their gear. Besides being extremely unfair that high CP, well geared players can get better drops playing through the basic story on a customized level that most of the playerbase would struggle at.

Franchise408 wrote: »

It would not turn overland into end game content

This is the goal for some players who have expressed dissatisfaction with forming dungeon and trial groups, and want to find their challenging content in overland instead.

Franchise408 wrote: »

Time, manpower, and costs are already being spent on issues that don't benefit everyone. I do not, and likely never will, have a companion. I think companions are a waste of content, and were a waste of time and resources. I have 0 interest in companions and will probably never get one. I would much prefer that time being spent on a vet overland instance.

Many players prefer having companions and have 0 interest in veteran overland. Companions actually have a purpose and benefit way more players than veteran overland would.

1. If you are grouped up, then you both would be doing the same difficulty level anyways, so you'd be in the same instance of normal or vet. Just as dungeons are done now. You wouldn't be separated from your friends if you were grouped up with them. And the vet overland would be an option for people seeking a challenge beyond the current non-engaging overland gameplay.
2. It is not huge, because a new player doesn't need purple drops. A new player doesn't need to worry about gear anyways, because their gear isn't fully maxed out until CP 160. A new player isn't doing content where maxed out optimization in gear matters, so the fact that someone is getting purple in their vet content, and the newbie is getting blue in their normal content, remains a non-factor. New players *shouldn't* have the same access to gear as higher, top level players. That's the entire point of an RPG, to build and grow as you go along and level.
3. And? That's some random voices on forums, who won't have any say or input on how the devs would theoretically implement such a feature. Some voices on the other side would prefer to run those of us wanting a higher difficulty slider out of the game altogether than to even consider an *option*. The extremes that some people take does not make the arguement.
4. Vet overland has a purpose as well, and would help with retention of existing players.

Nagastani

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

New World has an incredibly challenging open world and it's refreshing to say the least after playing The Elder Scrolls Online for years where the hardest thing about most of these quest chains is walking to the objective.

The most logical course of action is very simple. Players who enjoy difficult and challenging overland should play games like New World. Those who enjoy a more relaxing overland story experience should play games like ESO. It is not logical to expect either type game to completely change their base game to adapt to individual players.

Except that's what happened to ESO when they watered down overland content.

One Tamriel killed this game for me, I mean ironically the reasons I stuck around and kept pouring money into this is because the other content was so good, in fact it still is. However this game lost an element of realism when overland content became so easy to kill, this includes Imperial City.

People look at this and they don't like a challenge so that's why they defend the change. But look at it this way. You remember those awful Star Wars prequels? What was the purpose of having those Battledroids if they died so easily. Think about it, why even have them if they don't add value to any part of the film aside from including them for appearances sake?

And that's what happened to ESO, the overland content is so weak... it literally makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether its there or not. It doesn't add value. If you run across Daedra in the wilderness, then they should be strong like Daedra and challenge you in unique, albeit twisted ways.

This is not about us and you. ESO vs New World. ESO needs to go back and fix its overland content to be respectable again. ESO has been watered down and weathered because too many influencers have been leading the game down the wrong path. New World is similar to how ESO originally was, all its doing is showing us there is a problem and the problem is never going to get fixed if we keep making excuses for it.

TequilaFire

You need to update, they had 900K concurrent users on Sunday.
But their forums sound just like this one. smh

Nagastani

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

New World has an incredibly challenging open world and it's refreshing to say the least after playing The Elder Scrolls Online for years where the hardest thing about most of these quest chains is walking to the objective.

The most logical course of action is very simple. Players who enjoy difficult and challenging overland should play games like New World. Those who enjoy a more relaxing overland story experience should play games like ESO.

[snip]

I've always advocated for choice in content difficulty. You're advocating to keep choice out of the game even though this has been the #1 request on the forums for years, with damn good reason. People are sick of reading it on the forums? Well that means it's been a persistent request and imagine how people sick of not having a modicum of difficulty in 99% of the game feel. One shotting enemies Dynasty Warriors style isn't fun, especially when the quest dialog is building ____ the merciless up to be super intimidating and then you spend 45 minutes on a quest chain leading up to him, left click once and he's dead.

SilverBride wrote: »

It is not logical to expect either type game to completely change their base game to adapt to individual players.

So let me get this straight, it's okay for them to significantly overhaul and "streamline" the game to make it easier and more accessible but I can't ask for an optional mode to add the difficulty back in? [snip]

[edited for flaming]

I could not agree more. And that's what ESO needs is more people to disagree but show them the way. Stand up for what is real not always what makes us comfortable. We need to treat ESO like a friend who needs our help.

trackdemon5512

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

@trackdemon5512

What a total red herring argument. No one is talking about group content. People are not asking to force veteran zones on anyone. People are saying they would like an OPTION to do SOLO quest content in veteran mode by themselves. Yet you are calling them out as selfish, and citing group dungeons as a reason?

Then you resort to saying people who don't agree with you have a "god complex?"

Why can't you just accept that you have no say in what goes in the game, that other people have different opinions than you, and that it doesn't do you any harm for people to have an option to play the way they want?

Except Overland isn’t Solo Content. It’s ALL Group Content. Except for extremely rare instances the server is coded to put other players with you. Too few players in this instance means merging into a single one. This isn’t other MMORPGS where you can somehow get a server all to yourself.

Those solo instances are self imposed: Dungeons and Arenas. Beyond that you’re in a zone with everyone else. You’re not special in that respect. And if you had a difficulty slider it means nothing if every other player comes in and ruins your solo crusade. You can’t do anything about that.

And the God Complex refers to a fact that in virtually all RPGs your skills, levels, gear, and attributes effectively render you a God in said world. There is no infinite challenge. You hit a wall, have nothing to do, and in single player games you usually end up quitting.

Chrono Trigger allows you to replay the same game over again, choose different options for different endings. There are still a finite amount of endings and your power never goes beyond a point, and the game never adjusts to match because it’s impossible.

Adding an OPTIONAL toggle for veteran solo questing content would be good for the longevity of the game with proportionally minimal investment. @WhyMustItBe

Why don’t you have the developers explain how much it cost for them to change the game from its original form to One Tamriel’s universal scaling? Now tell them to go back to that, but individually, on what essentially is an entirely new game since what it was several years ago.

https://www.ign.com/articles/eso2-zenimax-online-studio-head-talks-possibility-of-elder-scrolls-online-sequel-ign-unfiltered

- When asked whether ESO might one day become unable to be updated, forcing either a rebuilt version "from the ground up" or a sequel, Firor said, "We're obviously doing our job right if you haven't noticed, but we're tearing down the engine, one room at a time, all the time." Firor laughed. "So the engine right now is much different from when we launched. It could never have scaled to what we do now. So we're constantly, behind the scenes, making it better." -

SilverBride

@WhyMustItBe @Franchise408

We can debate the same points over and over or we can just look at the bottom line, which is what Rich Lambert had to say about it. We have already been given an answer to this request.

Amottica

Callosum wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Callosum wrote: »

Are we really the minority? Referring to the comments

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvPs3pT83N6EmNLlLrbwwMQ/community?lb=UgkxXkNL1oOYr-gSS06uk_HFsCpeTbT5sncZ

That poll tells us nothing. I do mean it tells us nothing since I merely see a poll with options. I do not see the "results." Even then it is far from showing worthy information since is not intended to try to get a good sample of the players.

im not talking about the poll im talkning about the players who are commenting. Players on this forum this keeps calling a small minority but just within this week i have seen the three biggest streamers and content creators indicating the there's just nothing for them I the overland content anymore including the new upcoming content. Would say that Deltia is stating his view as well in that poll.

it's like you don't realize that we are paying costumers as well and paying for the content you love. The competition from other MMO's will increase a lot the next few years and If ESO loses their biggest streamers and players like us i will affect you and the content they will be able to create for you even though we like different parts of the game.

The comments from followers of the streamers would have similar interests to the streamer. As such the comments will be even more bias than what we see in forum threads.

Two players in this thread have posted comments Rich Lambert made a while back that ESO had 2/3s of the PvE game that was more challenging and players pretty much did not play them. I am not talking about Craglorn but silver and gold. That told them more than these threads can as it tells them what we actually do.

Adding to my post.

In those same comments, those two players posted in this thread Rich indicated that suggesting an optional difficulty is not so easy. While he did not indicate an absolute "never" or "no" he did seem to suggest that we should not hold our breath on the idea of an optional difficulty.

Franchise408

SilverBride wrote: »

@WhyMustItBe @Franchise408

We can debate the same points over and over or we can just look at the bottom line, which is what Rich Lambert had to say about it. We have already been given an answer to this request.

The game has also changed in many ways since release due to player feedback. Devs have said a lot of things that end up changing down the line.

People who want change have every right to keep speaking out about it, and I for one, will continue to speak out on topics like this about how this game needs to have a higher level overland.