Maintenance for the week of October 28:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 1, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668104/
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 1, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668104/
800k people don't seem to mind difficult overworld
-
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »
Then why aren't veteran dungeons ghost towns?
I would be careful not to assume just because you aren't interested in veteran content that means no one else would be either. Just the mere frequency this topic comes up on here should be proof enough of that.
Veteran dungeons and overland are two completely different things. Veteran dungeons are there for experienced players who want a challenge. Overland is there for everyone, including players new to ESO, to quest and to tell the story. There is no direct comparison.
Just because this topic comes up on the forums a lot does not mean the majority of players want it. This is what we call a "vocal minority".
You're just ignoring the entirety of my argument to make an unrelated point.
I am talking about adding an OPTIONAL Veteran version of the overland zones for experienced players who want a challenge while questing. So yes, in that respect what I am describing is exactly the same as veteran dungeons. So by your own logic, if having content for experienced players who want a challenge means it will become a "ghost town" (as you were claiming) then veteran dungeons would indeed be Ghost Towns. But they aren't. So in a sense you are defeating your own argument here by admitting there are players out there who want more of a challenge and who are willing to do veteran content.
And I never said a "majority" of players want it either. You're simply putting words in my mouth. What I said is that by judging by how often this topic comes up, clearly a lot of players want this. And a lot of them do. Whether it is a majority or not wasn't the point nor does it really matter. A majority of players don't do PvP but they still have PvP activities for players to do. So if your point is a majority of players must want something before it should be included in the game I would say that's a very tenuous stance.
Honestly, why do you (or anyone else for that matter) even care if Veteran players who find the normal overland too easy get a veteran equivalent to play in? It will help them enjoy the game more and has no negative impact on you at all.
We have simply been pointing out that:
1) We have had experience with a Veteran Overland system in which zones had different difficulties and more important players were of disparate power. It was terrible for a community experience
2) The game took a financial hit as a result of the difficulty and trouble of players actually getting together
3) That One Tamriel went a long way toward solving these issues
4) That subsequently released DLC zones that balanced difficulty and put all players on even footing were not only well received but improved profits significantly
5) That developer data, gleaned from not only overland content but player engagement for veteran content, has shown that the vast majority of players enjoy exploration and differentiation over difficulty
6) That the game has been rewritten and the content within tailored to be universally balanced and not subject to scaling
7) That the developers have repeatedly over the years said no and provided reasoning as to why personalized scaled difficulties or veteran overland isn’t coming back
And yet despite the data and 8 years of arguments/evidence against such y’all continue to posit this not only as an argument but something that the game needs. It’s like hearing “we need an AOE taunt” for the last several years in these forums despite the developers telling you over and over that combat has never been designed for you to need such and that asking for it amounts to nothing because it will never happen.
Again: your past examples are not applicable here because I am not suggesting they bring back the old Craglorn or Caldwell silver and gold. Those were flawed systems by design.
What I am asking for is for them do exactly what they have already done with Veteran Dungeons (which has been a success). You can still do your normal dungeons, and players who want more of a challenge can do Veteran dungeons. It's the same concept but for the overland, only without the tedious grind that was associated with veteran ranks or the limited scope of Craglorn.
What you’re asking for is either:
Veteran Overland Content
- the developers have said this would split zones into instances unnecessarily and eventually you get zones where a lack of players are doing it. The players who wanted said zones are now upset because they can’t do the content. Craglorn is the live example of this failing hard.
A Difficulty Slider
- the developers say again this would split the population and not only is it not in the best interest of the game as a whole but that the programming of such a system is far more complicated than “just a toggle” as overland enemies aren’t designed for scalability but rather player grouping and cooperation. You can’t be solo instanced and that other players engaging in the shared content will without a doubt render your difficult slider adjustments moot. You may die but they’ll still kill the world boss/dolmen/delve boss/etc and you will gain nothing for it.
The data has been there, analyzed, and the developers have said NO. I would ask players here to stop pigeonholing the data to just that from pre One Tamriel. As we and the developers have said it’s the cumulative data from over 8 years that lets them know what works.
I am not asking for a difficulty slider. I don't even know how that could would be programmed on an MMORPG (I doubt it could).
What I am asking for is for them to do exactly what they have already did for dungeons. And that is a system that has already been proven to work.
Past attempts at creating veteran overland content have been flawed like I told you, so the data associated with them is not relevant here because it's an entirely different process than what I am recommending. The closest system to what I am describing is - again - the current dungeon system that offers both a normal and veteran version of the same content with no strings attached, and it works fine and I don't see you or anyone else complaining about it.
And for what I hope is the last time: Craglorn is not a live example of what I am talking about. It has nothing to do with what I am talking about. As I already explained, it was always silly for them to expect everyone to go sit in one zone and repeat the same dailies over and over. You would have similar results if they were to release just a single Veteran Dungeon. So let's stop pretending Craglorn is an example of what I'm talking about. Please.Edited by Jeremy on 6 October 2021 23:343 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »
Then why aren't veteran dungeons ghost towns?
I would be careful not to assume just because you aren't interested in veteran content that means no one else would be either. Just the mere frequency this topic comes up on here should be proof enough of that.
Veteran dungeons and overland are two completely different things. Veteran dungeons are there for experienced players who want a challenge. Overland is there for everyone, including players new to ESO, to quest and to tell the story. There is no direct comparison.
Just because this topic comes up on the forums a lot does not mean the majority of players want it. This is what we call a "vocal minority".
You're just ignoring the entirety of my argument to make an unrelated point.
I am talking about adding an OPTIONAL Veteran version of the overland zones for experienced players who want a challenge while questing. So yes, in that respect what I am describing is exactly the same as veteran dungeons. So by your own logic, if having content for experienced players who want a challenge means it will become a "ghost town" (as you were claiming) then veteran dungeons would indeed be Ghost Towns. But they aren't. So in a sense you are defeating your own argument here by admitting there are players out there who want more of a challenge and who are willing to do veteran content.
And I never said a "majority" of players want it either. You're simply putting words in my mouth. What I said is that by judging by how often this topic comes up, clearly a lot of players want this. And a lot of them do. Whether it is a majority or not wasn't the point nor does it really matter. A majority of players don't do PvP but they still have PvP activities for players to do. So if your point is a majority of players must want something before it should be included in the game I would say that's a very tenuous stance.
Honestly, why do you (or anyone else for that matter) even care if Veteran players who find the normal overland too easy get a veteran equivalent to play in? It will help them enjoy the game more and has no negative impact on you at all.
We have simply been pointing out that:
1) We have had experience with a Veteran Overland system in which zones had different difficulties and more important players were of disparate power. It was terrible for a community experience
2) The game took a financial hit as a result of the difficulty and trouble of players actually getting together
3) That One Tamriel went a long way toward solving these issues
4) That subsequently released DLC zones that balanced difficulty and put all players on even footing were not only well received but improved profits significantly
5) That developer data, gleaned from not only overland content but player engagement for veteran content, has shown that the vast majority of players enjoy exploration and differentiation over difficulty
6) That the game has been rewritten and the content within tailored to be universally balanced and not subject to scaling
7) That the developers have repeatedly over the years said no and provided reasoning as to why personalized scaled difficulties or veteran overland isn’t coming back
And yet despite the data and 8 years of arguments/evidence against such y’all continue to posit this not only as an argument but something that the game needs. It’s like hearing “we need an AOE taunt” for the last several years in these forums despite the developers telling you over and over that combat has never been designed for you to need such and that asking for it amounts to nothing because it will never happen.
Again: your past examples are not applicable here because I am not suggesting they bring back the old Craglorn or Caldwell silver and gold. Those were flawed systems by design.
What I am asking for is for them do exactly what they have already done with Veteran Dungeons (which has been a success). You can still do your normal dungeons, and players who want more of a challenge can do Veteran dungeons. It's the same concept but for the overland, only without the tedious grind that was associated with veteran ranks or the limited scope of Craglorn.
What you’re asking for is either:
Veteran Overland Content
- the developers have said this would split zones into instances unnecessarily and eventually you get zones where a lack of players are doing it. The players who wanted said zones are now upset because they can’t do the content. Craglorn is the live example of this failing hard.
A Difficulty Slider
- the developers say again this would split the population and not only is it not in the best interest of the game as a whole but that the programming of such a system is far more complicated than “just a toggle” as overland enemies aren’t designed for scalability but rather player grouping and cooperation. You can’t be solo instanced and that other players engaging in the shared content will without a doubt render your difficult slider adjustments moot. You may die but they’ll still kill the world boss/dolmen/delve boss/etc and you will gain nothing for it.
The data has been there, analyzed, and the developers have said NO. I would ask players here to stop pigeonholing the data to just that from pre One Tamriel. As we and the developers have said it’s the cumulative data from over 8 years that lets them know what works.
I am not asking for a difficulty slider. I don't even know how that could would be programmed on an MMORPG (I doubt it could).
What I am asking for is for them to do exactly what they have already did for dungeons. And that is a system that ha already been proven to work.
Past attempts at creating veteran overland content have been flawed like I told you, so the data associated with them is not relevant here because it's an entirely different process than what I am recommending. The closest system to what I am describing is - again - the current dungeon system that offers both a normal and veteran version of the same content with no strings attached, and it works fine and I don't see you or anyone else complaining about it.
And for what I hope is the last time: Craglorn is not a live example of what I am talking about. It has nothing to do with what I am talking about. As I already explained, it was always silly for them to expect everyone to go sit in one zone and repeat the same dailies over and over. You would have similar results if they were to release just a single Veteran Dungeon. So let's stop pretending Craglorn is an example of what I'm talking about. Please.
Except the developers who have stated they are not instancing overland based on difficulty and that encounters aren’t even designed that way, to be scaled up or down. That has never been done. One Tamriel was a one time adjustment like CP 2.0.
If they did what you wanted not only would they instance the game again but you would instantly complain again when the rest of the game evened out playstyles with earlier content being easier than newer content. They aren’t going back to tweak all that again just for y’all.
The group finder system and Veteran Dungeons/Arenas/Trials does not work for overland.2 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »What I am asking for is for them do exactly what they have already done with Veteran Dungeons (which has been a success). You can still do your normal dungeons, and players who want more of a challenge can do Veteran dungeons. It's the same concept but for the overland, but without the tedious grind that was associated with veteran ranks or the limited scope of Craglorn.
It makes sense that there are levels of difficulty in dungeons and trials and arenas because they are there specifically to provide a challenge.
It does not make sense to put levels of challenge into overland because it isn't.
Well I of course don't agree that the overland isn't designed to provide a challenge. I believe the real issue is what is the appropriate level of challenge, and I think the best way to approach that question is a two tiered system.
Again: the overland content on this game makes up the vast bulk of this game's content, so it needs to be designed with both beginners and veterans in mind.Edited by Jeremy on 6 October 2021 23:353 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »
Then why aren't veteran dungeons ghost towns?
I would be careful not to assume just because you aren't interested in veteran content that means no one else would be either. Just the mere frequency this topic comes up on here should be proof enough of that.
Veteran dungeons and overland are two completely different things. Veteran dungeons are there for experienced players who want a challenge. Overland is there for everyone, including players new to ESO, to quest and to tell the story. There is no direct comparison.
Just because this topic comes up on the forums a lot does not mean the majority of players want it. This is what we call a "vocal minority".
You're just ignoring the entirety of my argument to make an unrelated point.
I am talking about adding an OPTIONAL Veteran version of the overland zones for experienced players who want a challenge while questing. So yes, in that respect what I am describing is exactly the same as veteran dungeons. So by your own logic, if having content for experienced players who want a challenge means it will become a "ghost town" (as you were claiming) then veteran dungeons would indeed be Ghost Towns. But they aren't. So in a sense you are defeating your own argument here by admitting there are players out there who want more of a challenge and who are willing to do veteran content.
And I never said a "majority" of players want it either. You're simply putting words in my mouth. What I said is that by judging by how often this topic comes up, clearly a lot of players want this. And a lot of them do. Whether it is a majority or not wasn't the point nor does it really matter. A majority of players don't do PvP but they still have PvP activities for players to do. So if your point is a majority of players must want something before it should be included in the game I would say that's a very tenuous stance.
Honestly, why do you (or anyone else for that matter) even care if Veteran players who find the normal overland too easy get a veteran equivalent to play in? It will help them enjoy the game more and has no negative impact on you at all.
We have simply been pointing out that:
1) We have had experience with a Veteran Overland system in which zones had different difficulties and more important players were of disparate power. It was terrible for a community experience
2) The game took a financial hit as a result of the difficulty and trouble of players actually getting together
3) That One Tamriel went a long way toward solving these issues
4) That subsequently released DLC zones that balanced difficulty and put all players on even footing were not only well received but improved profits significantly
5) That developer data, gleaned from not only overland content but player engagement for veteran content, has shown that the vast majority of players enjoy exploration and differentiation over difficulty
6) That the game has been rewritten and the content within tailored to be universally balanced and not subject to scaling
7) That the developers have repeatedly over the years said no and provided reasoning as to why personalized scaled difficulties or veteran overland isn’t coming back
And yet despite the data and 8 years of arguments/evidence against such y’all continue to posit this not only as an argument but something that the game needs. It’s like hearing “we need an AOE taunt” for the last several years in these forums despite the developers telling you over and over that combat has never been designed for you to need such and that asking for it amounts to nothing because it will never happen.
Again: your past examples are not applicable here because I am not suggesting they bring back the old Craglorn or Caldwell silver and gold. Those were flawed systems by design.
What I am asking for is for them do exactly what they have already done with Veteran Dungeons (which has been a success). You can still do your normal dungeons, and players who want more of a challenge can do Veteran dungeons. It's the same concept but for the overland, only without the tedious grind that was associated with veteran ranks or the limited scope of Craglorn.
What you’re asking for is either:
Veteran Overland Content
- the developers have said this would split zones into instances unnecessarily and eventually you get zones where a lack of players are doing it. The players who wanted said zones are now upset because they can’t do the content. Craglorn is the live example of this failing hard.
A Difficulty Slider
- the developers say again this would split the population and not only is it not in the best interest of the game as a whole but that the programming of such a system is far more complicated than “just a toggle” as overland enemies aren’t designed for scalability but rather player grouping and cooperation. You can’t be solo instanced and that other players engaging in the shared content will without a doubt render your difficult slider adjustments moot. You may die but they’ll still kill the world boss/dolmen/delve boss/etc and you will gain nothing for it.
The data has been there, analyzed, and the developers have said NO. I would ask players here to stop pigeonholing the data to just that from pre One Tamriel. As we and the developers have said it’s the cumulative data from over 8 years that lets them know what works.
I am not asking for a difficulty slider. I don't even know how that could would be programmed on an MMORPG (I doubt it could).
What I am asking for is for them to do exactly what they have already did for dungeons. And that is a system that ha already been proven to work.
Past attempts at creating veteran overland content have been flawed like I told you, so the data associated with them is not relevant here because it's an entirely different process than what I am recommending. The closest system to what I am describing is - again - the current dungeon system that offers both a normal and veteran version of the same content with no strings attached, and it works fine and I don't see you or anyone else complaining about it.
And for what I hope is the last time: Craglorn is not a live example of what I am talking about. It has nothing to do with what I am talking about. As I already explained, it was always silly for them to expect everyone to go sit in one zone and repeat the same dailies over and over. You would have similar results if they were to release just a single Veteran Dungeon. So let's stop pretending Craglorn is an example of what I'm talking about. Please.
Except the developers who have stated they are not instancing overland based on difficulty and that encounters aren’t even designed that way, to be scaled up or down. That has never been done. One Tamriel was a one time adjustment like CP 2.0.
If they did what you wanted not only would they instance the game again but you would instantly complain again when the rest of the game evened out playstyles with earlier content being easier than newer content. They aren’t going back to tweak all that again just for y’all.
The group finder system and Veteran Dungeons/Arenas/Trials does not work for overland.
It makes no sense to me to suggest zones that are already scaled aren't designed to be scaled. That is obviously false.
And this game is already instanced. So your second argument doesn't make any sense to me either. Why would players care that a game that is already instanced was instanced?
As far as what devs, the developers also said they were never going to abandon their subscription-only model. Now look at it. So let's stop treating what the developer's say as if they are written in stone. And I have said nothing about using the group finder for the overland, so that has nothing to do with anything I have said.Edited by Jeremy on 6 October 2021 23:473 -
WhyMustItBe✭✭✭✭✭
✭SilverBride wrote: »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.
ESO was failing which is what led to One Tamriel. ESO is now doing better than it ever has according to Rich Lambert. Why would they change this?
No one is asking them to.
People requesting a TOGGLE between how it is now and pre-One Tamriel veteran difficulty isn't changing anything for the people who like how it is now. You imply they would have to take something away in order to add an option. Yet when people point out that if the number wanting veteran mode were really so low it couldn't meaningfully affect normal mode shard populations, this is conveniently ignored.
Additionally, if you really think about it, all that work balancing overland mobs to the higher difficulty of pre-One Tamriel has already been done. That is work the devs put in already, which is essentially going to waste. Wouldn't it make sense to make that old existing higher difficulty data available as an OPTIONAL toggle so players could benefit from the best of both worlds?
To quote from Breaking Bad, no matter how much you have, how can you say no to more? Yes more people like normal mode. But a lot like veteran mode. If you already have done the work for veteran AND normal mode, why not do the far lower amount of work to build a toggle so both are happy paying customers?
More happy customers = more game longevity.
Edited by WhyMustItBe on 7 October 2021 00:353 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »It makes sense that there are levels of difficulty in dungeons and trials and arenas because they are there specifically to provide a challenge.
It does not make sense to put levels of challenge into overland because it isn't.
Well I of course don't agree that the overland isn't designed to provide a challenge...
"Can we get a vet mode for delves and quests? Uh, so we had that ... at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out. We put the challenge into World Bosses, and into solo Arenas, and into Dungeons and Trials." - Rich LambertEdited by SilverBride on 7 October 2021 00:43PCNA7 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭WhyMustItBe wrote: »...if you really think about it, all that work balancing overland mobs to the higher difficulty of pre-One Tamriel has already been done. That is work the devs put in already, which is essentially going to waste. Wouldn't it make sense to make that old existing higher difficulty data available as an OPTIONAL toggle so players could benefit from the best of both worlds?
...If you already have done the work for veteran AND normal mode, why not do the far lower amount of work to build a toggle so both are happy paying customers?
"Would it be an option just to give people the choice? 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 then why do it? 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." - Rich LambertPCNA5 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »
Then why aren't veteran dungeons ghost towns?
I would be careful not to assume just because you aren't interested in veteran content that means no one else would be either. Just the mere frequency this topic comes up on here should be proof enough of that.
Veteran dungeons and overland are two completely different things. Veteran dungeons are there for experienced players who want a challenge. Overland is there for everyone, including players new to ESO, to quest and to tell the story. There is no direct comparison.
Just because this topic comes up on the forums a lot does not mean the majority of players want it. This is what we call a "vocal minority".
You're just ignoring the entirety of my argument to make an unrelated point.
I am talking about adding an OPTIONAL Veteran version of the overland zones for experienced players who want a challenge while questing. So yes, in that respect what I am describing is exactly the same as veteran dungeons. So by your own logic, if having content for experienced players who want a challenge means it will become a "ghost town" (as you were claiming) then veteran dungeons would indeed be Ghost Towns. But they aren't. So in a sense you are defeating your own argument here by admitting there are players out there who want more of a challenge and who are willing to do veteran content.
And I never said a "majority" of players want it either. You're simply putting words in my mouth. What I said is that by judging by how often this topic comes up, clearly a lot of players want this. And a lot of them do. Whether it is a majority or not wasn't the point nor does it really matter. A majority of players don't do PvP but they still have PvP activities for players to do. So if your point is a majority of players must want something before it should be included in the game I would say that's a very tenuous stance.
Honestly, why do you (or anyone else for that matter) even care if Veteran players who find the normal overland too easy get a veteran equivalent to play in? It will help them enjoy the game more and has no negative impact on you at all.
We have simply been pointing out that:
1) We have had experience with a Veteran Overland system in which zones had different difficulties and more important players were of disparate power. It was terrible for a community experience
2) The game took a financial hit as a result of the difficulty and trouble of players actually getting together
3) That One Tamriel went a long way toward solving these issues
4) That subsequently released DLC zones that balanced difficulty and put all players on even footing were not only well received but improved profits significantly
5) That developer data, gleaned from not only overland content but player engagement for veteran content, has shown that the vast majority of players enjoy exploration and differentiation over difficulty
6) That the game has been rewritten and the content within tailored to be universally balanced and not subject to scaling
7) That the developers have repeatedly over the years said no and provided reasoning as to why personalized scaled difficulties or veteran overland isn’t coming back
And yet despite the data and 8 years of arguments/evidence against such y’all continue to posit this not only as an argument but something that the game needs. It’s like hearing “we need an AOE taunt” for the last several years in these forums despite the developers telling you over and over that combat has never been designed for you to need such and that asking for it amounts to nothing because it will never happen.
Again: your past examples are not applicable here because I am not suggesting they bring back the old Craglorn or Caldwell silver and gold. Those were flawed systems by design.
What I am asking for is for them do exactly what they have already done with Veteran Dungeons (which has been a success). You can still do your normal dungeons, and players who want more of a challenge can do Veteran dungeons. It's the same concept but for the overland, only without the tedious grind that was associated with veteran ranks or the limited scope of Craglorn.
What you’re asking for is either:
Veteran Overland Content
- the developers have said this would split zones into instances unnecessarily and eventually you get zones where a lack of players are doing it. The players who wanted said zones are now upset because they can’t do the content. Craglorn is the live example of this failing hard.
A Difficulty Slider
- the developers say again this would split the population and not only is it not in the best interest of the game as a whole but that the programming of such a system is far more complicated than “just a toggle” as overland enemies aren’t designed for scalability but rather player grouping and cooperation. You can’t be solo instanced and that other players engaging in the shared content will without a doubt render your difficult slider adjustments moot. You may die but they’ll still kill the world boss/dolmen/delve boss/etc and you will gain nothing for it.
The data has been there, analyzed, and the developers have said NO. I would ask players here to stop pigeonholing the data to just that from pre One Tamriel. As we and the developers have said it’s the cumulative data from over 8 years that lets them know what works.
I am not asking for a difficulty slider. I don't even know how that could would be programmed on an MMORPG (I doubt it could).
What I am asking for is for them to do exactly what they have already did for dungeons. And that is a system that ha already been proven to work.
Past attempts at creating veteran overland content have been flawed like I told you, so the data associated with them is not relevant here because it's an entirely different process than what I am recommending. The closest system to what I am describing is - again - the current dungeon system that offers both a normal and veteran version of the same content with no strings attached, and it works fine and I don't see you or anyone else complaining about it.
And for what I hope is the last time: Craglorn is not a live example of what I am talking about. It has nothing to do with what I am talking about. As I already explained, it was always silly for them to expect everyone to go sit in one zone and repeat the same dailies over and over. You would have similar results if they were to release just a single Veteran Dungeon. So let's stop pretending Craglorn is an example of what I'm talking about. Please.
Except the developers who have stated they are not instancing overland based on difficulty and that encounters aren’t even designed that way, to be scaled up or down. That has never been done. One Tamriel was a one time adjustment like CP 2.0.
If they did what you wanted not only would they instance the game again but you would instantly complain again when the rest of the game evened out playstyles with earlier content being easier than newer content. They aren’t going back to tweak all that again just for y’all.
The group finder system and Veteran Dungeons/Arenas/Trials does not work for overland.
It makes no sense to me to suggest zones that are already scaled aren't designed to be scaled. That is obviously false.
And this game is already instanced. So your second argument doesn't make any sense to me either. Why would players care that a game that is already instanced was instanced?
As far as what devs, the developers also said they were never going to abandon their subscription-only model. Now look at it. So let's stop treating what the developer's say as if they are written in stone. And I have said nothing about using the group finder for the overland, so that has nothing to do with anything I have said.
You clearly don’t know how this game works.
The zones aren’t scaled. YOU have a modifier attached to you up to getting a certain level. After you hit that level, the modifier disappears. Think of the entire game as set to CP160. Characters pre-Cp160 have a modifier so that their damage can match the game world. As you approach 160 your boosts are diminished until you match the world. Without that modifier it would take a new player with matching leveled gear about 10 minutes to kill mudcrabs and alits in starter zones.
Normal Dungeons have enemies set to CP50. Veteran Dungeons have those enemies set to CP160. The enemies and mobs within are specially tailored. That’s it.
Overland is not designed to be scaled. The enemies are at a set level. Their moves, damage, etc are all at a set place. You can nerf yourself by not eating, not wearing proper gear, etc. But there is not a reverse modifier for your stats. Why should there be? You want a modifier system on top of a modifier system on top of a system that already allows you to neuter yourself.
This game is programmed to merge/split instances based on population in order to keep the game world full. You want server like instances. This game doesn’t do that. It isn’t programmed to do that. If your instance has few players you’re automatically merged with others.
You will never get the challenge you want without completely solo instances. That’s never happening nor are privatized zone instances.9 -
WhyMustItBe✭✭✭✭✭
✭SilverBride wrote: »WhyMustItBe wrote: »...if you really think about it, all that work balancing overland mobs to the higher difficulty of pre-One Tamriel has already been done. That is work the devs put in already, which is essentially going to waste. Wouldn't it make sense to make that old existing higher difficulty data available as an OPTIONAL toggle so players could benefit from the best of both worlds?
...If you already have done the work for veteran AND normal mode, why not do the far lower amount of work to build a toggle so both are happy paying customers?
"Would it be an option just to give people the choice? 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 then why do it? 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." - Rich Lambert
...uh-huh?trackdemon5512 wrote: »That’s never happening nor are privatized zone instances.
You have no more idea what will happen in the future than the people asking for a veteran mode toggle. Nor any more say.
Seriously guys what is with all the "this can never happen, this is all too hard" talk?
Edited by WhyMustItBe on 7 October 2021 03:572 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭WhyMustItBe wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »WhyMustItBe wrote: »...if you really think about it, all that work balancing overland mobs to the higher difficulty of pre-One Tamriel has already been done. That is work the devs put in already, which is essentially going to waste. Wouldn't it make sense to make that old existing higher difficulty data available as an OPTIONAL toggle so players could benefit from the best of both worlds?
...If you already have done the work for veteran AND normal mode, why not do the far lower amount of work to build a toggle so both are happy paying customers?
"Would it be an option just to give people the choice? 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 then why do it? 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." - Rich Lambert
...uh-huh?trackdemon5512 wrote: »That’s never happening nor are privatized zone instances.
You have no more idea what will happen in the future than the people you keep talking down to. Nor any more say.
Seriously guys what is with all the "this can never happen, this is all too hard" talk?
Let me see. 7 years of the developers not keeping silent about it but rather being increasingly vocal that it won’t happen. Historical in-game evidence that it doesn’t work. Real world out-of-game evidence from other RPGs that not only doesn’t it work but it’s effectively a waste of money.
Extrapolating from just that it’s going to be a never going to happen situation.
Also on that train of thought, the notion that this game will ever have cross play or cross save. The developers and I can list all the reasons why but if y’all want to go ahead and say “it’s just a simple database transfer, they did it before and they can do it again” then clearly these people are not the type to accept anything from those better in the know than them.7 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭WhyMustItBe wrote: »Seriously guys what is with all the "this can never happen, this is all too hard" talk?
Rich Lambert addressed this a month ago in a Twitch stream when asked if they could get veteran delves and quests, then specifically an optional version. His replies made it very clear that this is not going to happen.Edited by SilverBride on 7 October 2021 02:45PCNA5 -
ke.sardenb14_ESO✭✭✭As a working adult, I understand there is a limit to what you can and can not put into a game, but the lack of content designed with endgame players in mind is slowly killing the trail and PvP community.
I don't think anyone is asking for overland to play like vMA or vVH(although I'd love it) but something akin to Craglorn. Something not that difficult, with options to challenge those interested in exploring.3 -
ke.sardenb14_ESO✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »It makes sense that there are levels of difficulty in dungeons and trials and arenas because they are there specifically to provide a challenge.
It does not make sense to put levels of challenge into overland because it isn't.
Well I of course don't agree that the overland isn't designed to provide a challenge...
"Can we get a vet mode for delves and quests? Uh, so we had that ... at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out. We put the challenge into World Bosses, and into solo Arenas, and into Dungeons and Trials." - Rich Lambert
....I did Cadwell Gold and silver, but I can see why people didn't. Not because of difficulty:
1. Your RPing a character in DC, AD, or EP, now it is time to undo all of that.
2. If you made a character for DC, AD, and EP, do you really want to go through it agian when 3/4 of the quest have only one linear path.
Those were why most of my friends never completed it, but we all love craglon so....3 -
WhyMustItBe✭✭✭✭✭
✭@trackdemon5512 , @SilverBride - What I don't understand is why you guys are so intent on speaking for the devs?
I mean everyone knows your opinions on the matter by now. You don't want to give people the option to toggle overland to veteran mode. Like OK, duly note. That is your opinion and it is perfectly valid. So why do you care so much how other people interpret what Rich said in that stream? How does it effect you, and why do you think you are more qualified to tell people what the devs meant than anyone else?
Because like it or not, he did NOT explicitly say no to an optional toggle the same way he did about forced veteran only mode, only that it would be a lot of work. Until Rich comes on this thread and says "yes, what I meant by 'it would be difficult' is 'no we will never do that, no way, no how, not ever' just to clarify" I consider the issue still very much in the realm of possibility.
You don't need to keep telling people they are wrong for not reading his words the same way you did. We get it. You think something being a lot of work is the same as "no," and others disagree.
This attitude though that anyone who doesn't interpret things the same way as you is wrong is not helping your argument.
Edited by WhyMustItBe on 7 October 2021 03:503 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭ke.sardenb14_ESO wrote: »As a working adult, I understand there is a limit to what you can and can not put into a game, but the lack of content designed with endgame players in mind is slowly killing the trail and PvP community.
I don't think anyone is asking for overland to play like vMA or vVH(although I'd love it) but something akin to Craglorn. Something not that difficult, with options to challenge those interested in exploring.
Except that even today, several years after its introduction, Craglorn remains unplayed in a statistically significant way. It’s the least engaged zone by a wide margin outside of trials. Even though the content has been adjusted so that you don’t need groups players don’t do anything there despite incentives such as motifs. Players don’t even like hunting for skyshards there.
That says a lot. It says that difficult content is a turn off for the majority of players. They don’t just ignore it but avoid it. So it’s a waste of resources to develop a new functional difficulty standard that most players will avoid.6 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭WhyMustItBe wrote: »@trackdemon5512 , @SilverBride - What I don't understand is why you guys are so intent on speaking for the devs?
Quoting Rich Lambert is not the same as speaking for him.WhyMustItBe wrote: »I mean everyone knows your opinions on the matter by now. You don't want to give people the option to toggle overland to veteran mode. Like OK, duly note. That is your opinion and it is perfectly valid. So why do you care so much how other people interpret what Rich said in that stream? How does it effect you, and why do you think you are more qualified to tell people what the devs meant than anyone else?
I don't think I am more qualified than anyone on either side of the debate. I even encouraged posters to watch the entire conversation on the Twitch stream and draw their own conclusions. But I do believe I am interpreting it accurately just as others believe they are, and am standing up for my opinion.WhyMustItBe wrote: »Because like it or not, he did NOT explicitly say no to an optional toggle the same way he did about forced veteran only mode, only that it would be a lot of work. Until Rich comes on this thread and says "yes, what I meant by 'it would be difficult' is 'no we will never do that, no way, no how, not ever' just to clarify" I consider the issue still very much in the realm of possibility.
That is your opinion which you are entitled to, but I interpret it differently, and see it as "no".WhyMustItBe wrote: »You don't need to keep telling people they are wrong for not reading his words the same way you did. We get it. You think something being a lot of work is the same as "no," and others disagree.
This attitude though that anyone who doesn't interpret things the same way as you is wrong is not helping your argument.
I have no arguement. But I love this game and will defend it from suggestions that could bring about its downfall.Edited by SilverBride on 7 October 2021 04:23PCNA8 -
ke.sardenb14_ESO✭✭✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »ke.sardenb14_ESO wrote: »As a working adult, I understand there is a limit to what you can and can not put into a game, but the lack of content designed with endgame players in mind is slowly killing the trail and PvP community.
I don't think anyone is asking for overland to play like vMA or vVH(although I'd love it) but something akin to Craglorn. Something not that difficult, with options to challenge those interested in exploring.
Except that even today, several years after its introduction, Craglorn remains unplayed in a statistically significant way. It’s the least engaged zone by a wide margin outside of trials. Even though the content has been adjusted so that you don’t need groups players don’t do anything there despite incentives such as motifs. Players don’t even like hunting for skyshards there.
That says a lot. It says that difficult content is a turn off for the majority of players. They don’t just ignore it but avoid it. So it’s a waste of resources to develop a new functional difficulty standard that most players will avoid.
The content a game provides fosters the community that plays the game. When the game provides around 4-5 new hours of content that could be considered difficult a year, how likely is it for that game to retain players that value that that of content? And, if the game can't retain players that like more challenging content, how much engagement can be expected for the the challenging content already present? Now consider if a game provides 50-70 hours of simple content a year, how likely will the game be able to retain players that value that content?3 -
kargen27✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »
Then why aren't veteran dungeons ghost towns?
I would be careful not to assume just because you aren't interested in veteran content that means no one else would be either. Just the mere frequency this topic comes up on here should be proof enough of that.
Veteran dungeons and overland are two completely different things. Veteran dungeons are there for experienced players who want a challenge. Overland is there for everyone, including players new to ESO, to quest and to tell the story. There is no direct comparison.
Just because this topic comes up on the forums a lot does not mean the majority of players want it. This is what we call a "vocal minority".
You're just ignoring the entirety of my argument to make an unrelated point.
I am talking about adding an OPTIONAL Veteran version of the overland zones for experienced players who want a challenge while questing. So yes, in that respect what I am describing is exactly the same as veteran dungeons. So by your own logic, if having content for experienced players who want a challenge means it will become a "ghost town" (as you were claiming) then veteran dungeons would indeed be Ghost Towns. But they aren't. So in a sense you are defeating your own argument here by admitting there are players out there who want more of a challenge and who are willing to do veteran content.
And I never said a "majority" of players want it either. You're simply putting words in my mouth. What I said is that by judging by how often this topic comes up, clearly a lot of players want this. And a lot of them do. Whether it is a majority or not wasn't the point nor does it really matter. A majority of players don't do PvP but they still have PvP activities for players to do. So if your point is a majority of players must want something before it should be included in the game I would say that's a very tenuous stance.
Honestly, why do you (or anyone else for that matter) even care if Veteran players who find the normal overland too easy get a veteran equivalent to play in? It will help them enjoy the game more and has no negative impact on you at all.
You are asking that all existing zones be recreated to provide harder content. The environment could of course stay the same but mechanics for all that inhabit the zones would have to be change. That is a lot of time intensive work for what is most likely a very small portion of the population.
The zones would be ghost towns. Trials are instanced to 12 players and are very small compared to an entire zone. How many players need to be in each zone for it to feel populated? Trials only need be populated for a short time. For the game to be fun zones are going to need to be populated much longer.
Questing is basically a one time thing per character. Harder content in the game can be repeated several times by your one character. Players who return to zones usually are farming materials or something like that once the quests are done. They usually don't want harder mobs getting in the way.
This topic come up often but when you look the "vocal few" describes things fairly well. It is usually the same people. The forums are a very tine representation of the games population and human nature being what it is people usually come here to complain or ask for a change. People don't often join the forums to say hey great keep it up.
Why we care is because a veteran level dilutes the population. Finding groups can be difficult now. How much harder will it be when the population is divided? It also takes valuable time and resources away from the company that frankly the majority of players on these forums think would be better directed somewhere else.
The harder zones would not be good for the health of the game unless nobody played on them. Then they would have no affect on the game but all those resources creating the new zones went to waste.and then the parrot said, "must be the water mines green too."5 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ke.sardenb14_ESO wrote: »The content a game provides fosters the community that plays the game. When the game provides around 4-5 new hours of content that could be considered difficult a year, how likely is it for that game to retain players that value that that of content? And, if the game can't retain players that like more challenging content, how much engagement can be expected for the the challenging content already present? Now consider if a game provides 50-70 hours of simple content a year, how likely will the game be able to retain players that value that content?
“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." - Rich LambertPCNA3 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭WhyMustItBe wrote: »@trackdemon5512 , @SilverBride - What I don't understand is why you guys are so intent on speaking for the devs?
@WhyMustItBe
I do not think anyone actually needs to speak for the devs as it has been posted in this thread what the devs have already stated. That statement was basically they already offered more challenging zones which were not used and that while the devs did not offer an absolute no to creating an option, Rich did make it seem that we should not hold our breath on that.
Again, it was the devs words, not player's, and this is in the history of this thread.6 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It's extremely obvious (to me) he is saying "no" for the time being, and laying out why that answer is "no". He certainly DOES leave the door open for the developers to change their minds, and even gives an insight as to how it could be changed (by addressing his concerns about low player participation, dev time, and rewards) for anyone who knows how to negotiate, but that is definitely a no for the time being.
I think people reading it as a "no, not ever," or "maybe..." are just picking the parts of what he's saying that they want to hear and not viewing the tone and overall content as a whole. It being indecisive doesn't mean it's not a "no" (for now), and it being a "no" (for now) is not the developers saying it could never happen. Just how I view things personally.Edited by spartaxoxo on 7 October 2021 04:391 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭ke.sardenb14_ESO wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »ke.sardenb14_ESO wrote: »As a working adult, I understand there is a limit to what you can and can not put into a game, but the lack of content designed with endgame players in mind is slowly killing the trail and PvP community.
I don't think anyone is asking for overland to play like vMA or vVH(although I'd love it) but something akin to Craglorn. Something not that difficult, with options to challenge those interested in exploring.
Except that even today, several years after its introduction, Craglorn remains unplayed in a statistically significant way. It’s the least engaged zone by a wide margin outside of trials. Even though the content has been adjusted so that you don’t need groups players don’t do anything there despite incentives such as motifs. Players don’t even like hunting for skyshards there.
That says a lot. It says that difficult content is a turn off for the majority of players. They don’t just ignore it but avoid it. So it’s a waste of resources to develop a new functional difficulty standard that most players will avoid.
The content a game provides fosters the community that plays the game. When the game provides around 4-5 new hours of content that could be considered difficult a year, how likely is it for that game to retain players that value that that of content? And, if the game can't retain players that like more challenging content, how much engagement can be expected for the the challenging content already present? Now consider if a game provides 50-70 hours of simple content a year, how likely will the game be able to retain players that value that content?
Except you cant put a time value on hard content with ESO. If you were to play through the vet DLC dungeons each year AND you were very good you may experience 4 hours of playtime. But if you’re not a super apex player it’s much more time than that. And even if you are apex you have speed modes, no deaths, hard modes, trifectas. The multitudes of other small achievements.
And then there is the yearly trial. Vet trials aren’t done in one hour the first time, esp if you go in blind. And the same trifecta achievements? C’mon.
ESO provides more than 80 hours of story content alone per year between its two story DLCs. And veteran content has no time value. But if you’re able to do the hardest designed content in just 4-5 hours then what good is vet overland doing for you? It can’t be the same difficulty as a trial? That makes no sense.5 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »It's extremely obvious (to me) he is saying "no" for the time being, and laying out why that answer is "no". He certainly DOES leave the door open for the developers to change their minds, and even gives an insight as to how it could be changed (by addressing his concerns about low player participation, dev time, and rewards) for anyone who knows how to negotiate, but that is definitely a no for the time being.
I think people reading it as a "no, not ever," or "maybe..." are just picking the parts of what he's saying that they want to hear and not viewing the tone and overall content as a whole. It being indecisive doesn't mean it's not a "no" (for now), and it being a "no" (for now) is not the developers saying it could never happen. Just how I view things personally.
“Would it be an option just to give people the choice? 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 then why do it? 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.
This is what makes me see it as a definite "no". There is no "If this or this or this happens then maybe", but rather "players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time."PCNA2 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »ke.sardenb14_ESO wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »ke.sardenb14_ESO wrote: »As a working adult, I understand there is a limit to what you can and can not put into a game, but the lack of content designed with endgame players in mind is slowly killing the trail and PvP community.
I don't think anyone is asking for overland to play like vMA or vVH(although I'd love it) but something akin to Craglorn. Something not that difficult, with options to challenge those interested in exploring.
Except that even today, several years after its introduction, Craglorn remains unplayed in a statistically significant way. It’s the least engaged zone by a wide margin outside of trials. Even though the content has been adjusted so that you don’t need groups players don’t do anything there despite incentives such as motifs. Players don’t even like hunting for skyshards there.
That says a lot. It says that difficult content is a turn off for the majority of players. They don’t just ignore it but avoid it. So it’s a waste of resources to develop a new functional difficulty standard that most players will avoid.
The content a game provides fosters the community that plays the game. When the game provides around 4-5 new hours of content that could be considered difficult a year, how likely is it for that game to retain players that value that that of content? And, if the game can't retain players that like more challenging content, how much engagement can be expected for the the challenging content already present? Now consider if a game provides 50-70 hours of simple content a year, how likely will the game be able to retain players that value that content?
Except you cant put a time value on hard content with ESO. If you were to play through the vet DLC dungeons each year AND you were very good you may experience 4 hours of playtime. But if you’re not a super apex player it’s much more time than that. And even if you are apex you have speed modes, no deaths, hard modes, trifectas. The multitudes of other small achievements.
And then there is the yearly trial. Vet trials aren’t done in one hour the first time, esp if you go in blind. And the same trifecta achievements? C’mon.
ESO provides more than 80 hours of story content alone per year between its two story DLCs. And veteran content has no time value. But if you’re able to do the hardest designed content in just 4-5 hours then what good is vet overland doing for you? It can’t be the same difficulty as a trial? That makes no sense.
While I expect Rich Lambert would agree when it comes to specialized content he seems to see the zone stories very differently based on his comments that have been posted to this thread. He said they did create more challenging questing for this game. That 2/3s of the game was originally more challenging but players basically did not play it. His words and observation, not mine.
And again, that was part of the comments two other players posted to this thread. And as I think I mentioned in the previous post, he did not give an absolute no to an optional difficulty at some point but merely seemed to indicate that we should not hold our breath for it.2 -
Elvenheart✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭An OPTIONAL Veteran Version of the Overland content would be nice for those who want one (like me). And there is no good argument against having one either.
I think Rich himself gave the good argument against it when he said creating an optional veteran version of the overland area isn’t as easy as just flipping a switch. Time and resources better spent elsewhere in the game for things that appeal to the majority of players, like the upcoming armory and item curation systems, is the argument against it.4 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »It's extremely obvious (to me) he is saying "no" for the time being, and laying out why that answer is "no". He certainly DOES leave the door open for the developers to change their minds, and even gives an insight as to how it could be changed (by addressing his concerns about low player participation, dev time, and rewards) for anyone who knows how to negotiate, but that is definitely a no for the time being.
I think people reading it as a "no, not ever," or "maybe..." are just picking the parts of what he's saying that they want to hear and not viewing the tone and overall content as a whole. It being indecisive doesn't mean it's not a "no" (for now), and it being a "no" (for now) is not the developers saying it could never happen. Just how I view things personally.
“Would it be an option just to give people the choice? 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 then why do it? 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.
This is what makes me see it as a definite "no". There is no "If this or this or this happens then maybe", but rather "players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time."
That's him discussing a incentive obstacle, not him saying that it will never be done. He is citing it as a problem he doesn't know how to resolve and saying why, and Vet Overland obviously isn't going to come without that obstacle being solved.2 -
AlexanderDeLarge✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Absolute revisionism. Craglorn as an adventure zone (group mandatory) released at a time when grouping and phasing hardly worked. No wonder it failed when the basic premise it was built on (people grouping together) was miserable and broken.trackdemon5512 wrote: »
What you’re asking for is either:
Veteran Overland Content
- the developers have said this would split zones into instances unnecessarily and eventually you get zones where a lack of players are doing it. The players who wanted said zones are now upset because they can’t do the content. Craglorn is the live example of this failing hard.
Difficulty scaling is desperately needed. 10 years. 7 paid expansions. 22 DLCs. 40 game changing updates including A Realm Reborn-tier overhaul of the game including a permanent CP160 gear cap and ridiculous power creep thereafter. I'm sick and tired of hearing about Cadwell Silver&Gold as a "you think you do but you don't"-tier deflection to any criticism regarding the lack of overland difficulty in the vast majority of this game.
"ESO doesn't need a harder overland" on YouTube for a video of a naked level 3 character AFKing in front of a bear for a minute and a half before dying5 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »“Would it be an option just to give people the choice? 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 then why do it? 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.
This is what makes me see it as a definite "no". There is no "If this or this or this happens then maybe", but rather "players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time."
That's him discussing a incentive obstacle, not him saying that it will never be done. He is citing it as a problem he doesn't know how to resolve and saying why, and Vet Overland obviously isn't going to come without that obstacle being solved.
What incentive obstacle? That most players do not want difficulty in the story and quests? If anything ESO has gotten more casual over time, especially with the introduction of Companions. In light of that why would he put time and resources into a feature that he said was not utilized by most players when it existed and that most players don't want?
Rich didn't give any indication that he was trying to solve any problem... what he indicated was that a problem was solved with One Tamriel.
For those who may have missed it, or those who wish to watch it again, here is the link:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1133028256?t=1h48m0s
He discusses overland difficulty from 1:48:00 through 1:51:11 (He briefly replies to a comment on skyshards, then gets back to topic.)PCNA1 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭spartaxoxo wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »It's extremely obvious (to me) he is saying "no" for the time being, and laying out why that answer is "no". He certainly DOES leave the door open for the developers to change their minds, and even gives an insight as to how it could be changed (by addressing his concerns about low player participation, dev time, and rewards) for anyone who knows how to negotiate, but that is definitely a no for the time being.
I think people reading it as a "no, not ever," or "maybe..." are just picking the parts of what he's saying that they want to hear and not viewing the tone and overall content as a whole. It being indecisive doesn't mean it's not a "no" (for now), and it being a "no" (for now) is not the developers saying it could never happen. Just how I view things personally.
“Would it be an option just to give people the choice? 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 then why do it? 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.
This is what makes me see it as a definite "no". There is no "If this or this or this happens then maybe", but rather "players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time."
That's him discussing a incentive obstacle, not him saying that it will never be done. He is citing it as a problem he doesn't know how to resolve and saying why, and Vet Overland obviously isn't going to come without that obstacle being solved.
I’ll put it all back together
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."
“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.” Fall 2021
(Mike Finnigan - Lead Encounter Designer for ESO) Twitter Exchange - 7-14-21
@realelistix 7/14/21
Oh! Oh! Did you guys see the LOTRO landscape difficulty sliders they've done for that MMO? Since we're talking about difficulty, what about people who want to be challenged by the content they enjoy the most like the stories you craft for us?
Mike - 7/14/21
We get this question or request a lot too. We built overland content to be inclusive because as an MMO we want to unify as much of the player base as possible in a given zone. Difficulty sliders and settings are a detriment to that.
Now let me add this.
Making a difficulty slider in this game wouldn’t work. Why? Because everything scales to LVL50+CP160. Weapons, gear, enemies. All enemies are CP160. If you’re not CP160 a modifier a diminishing modifier is attached to you until you hit that. The game and the enemies are designed around that CP160 threshold. For any content added post VR16 conversion there is no history for sub CP160 builds nor any encounter designs.
When One Tamriel was introduced, the developers basically went in and permanently scaled up each enemy in the earlier zones to CP160 attributes. This was difficult but made easy by the fact that zones had set levels within. All DLC overland content has none of the previous data to fall upon as there was never any. And for those who played pre One Tamriel they remember that it’s not as if enemies in low leveled zones scaled to you. They just became a cake walk. One Tamriel served as a difficulty increase across most of the game and a nerf in certain portions.
So how would you make the game harder with a slider? You would have to create a new, higher CP. A CP 180 or 200. And then what? Do you now have gear that scales to that for players or not? Because you would definitely have players screaming for higher gear. And there is no telling how badly that can break content. You have 7 years of content that would need to be examined, plus whatever content is in the pipeline. And then going forward you would increase development time on DLC because of programming and testing encounters for one universal CP160 you now have to account for a range.
It’s so so so much work. And how many players will utilize this option? From ZOS’s data not enough to justify the cost. The same way they’ve said they could develop a tool to create account transfers but the logistics, costs, risks with regards to data/account loss compared to what they would make in return for charging for it in no way justifies doing so. Is it possible? Yes. Is it worth it? Absolutely not. And therefore it will never happen.
This is so stupid.7
This discussion has been closed.