800k people don't seem to mind difficult overworld

Blood_again

Vhozek wrote: »

Bro, I'm currently playing a new game where mobs are kicking my ass. It is as exciting as I imagined it would be if it would be applied here. It even has the same action combat ESO has. The issue here is that I enjoy The Elder Scrolls immensely but I guess I'll have to narrow out my preferences a bit more. I used to only play ESO and TES games because it was the only lore I needed to care about. I would only play LoL because it was the only PvP I needed to care about. Thanks to ESO, I have branched out and could drop it at any time given a different franchise hooks me in just as much and provides a more exciting gameplay.. Hey, it at least introduced me to MMOs. I hope TES games don't serve that purpose for open world RPGs. I guess we'll see with TES6.

Ok, it is understandable that you have a honeymoon in NW and want some features from it to be implemented in other games you liked.
But there is an issue. Even if you managed to bring the half of the new game into ESO, that wouldn't start a new ESO honeymoon for you. Sorry about that.

I can prove it with my 20 years MMO experience from UO to ESO. If you spent a year in game and some aspect of it have become boring for you - it's a dead horse for you, just stop flogging it.
You can raise some interest to it with new people (for group content) or new activity (switch to PvP, achievements, collections). For a short time only. Especially if you found a new one.

spartaxoxo

Iccotak wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Did you not read what I wrote? Debuff food is no different than just buffing enemy stats - it's no better than the days of Cadwell's S&G.
The problem is mechanics - not stats

Yes. And I proposed a more realistic solution that met the criteria that Rich was worried about.

I'm not saying to overhaul the old bosses because at this point that is unrealistic - but what I am saying is that the problem is almost entirely a Mechanics issue, not one of stats.

- and that your "solution" is in reality a Non-Solution, because it is no different than wearing bad gear, minimal skills, no cp none of which solved the problem of poorly designed mechanics. Just handicapping yourself does not solve the issue that people are complaining about.

It is different than handicapping yourself with gear because it allows you to push beyond just running naked would do. And yes it is a solution to this issue, games have done it to add additional challenge to things for years. That you personally wouldn't enjoy having to deal with existing mechanics doesn't change that this is a tried, true method of increasing difficulty and one with a LONG history in this franchise.

I don't view it your way at all. I don't need new mechs and don't find it reasonable to expect them to spend that much time on it when the vast majority of the playerbase doesn't want it. They have already made it clear that's not gonna happen.

Jackey

Adding my comment from a closed thread.

Jackey wrote: »

Overland is fine.
What they really need is to add an instance toggle for quests.
The quest will then be scaled based on group setting Normal / Veteran and the amount of players in the group.

...please ZOS

It's just way too anticlimactic when the hyped up story boss turns out to be like a delve boss.

spartaxoxo

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

Contrast that with "it would be difficult." You are assuming that means no too. But that DOES have other interpretations.

He literally said "like I said before" at the end, the answer is no for both questions at this time.

ZOS_Ragnar

We have removed a few posts from this thread that were overly combative and were not allowing for a civil and constructive discussion. Please take some time to review our Community Rules to prevent any future violations.

WhyMustItBe

Jackey wrote: »

It's just way too anticlimactic when the hyped up story boss turns out to be like a delve boss.

Part of the problem is that when they nerfed overland/quest content for One Tamriel, they went a bit too far. This is what a quest boss looks like for a lowbie character in quest greens now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-bdVoyIpfw

Is it any wonder long-term players are burning out and leaving because the quest content is no longer engaging?

Re-visiting the idea of an optional veteran mode toggle so BOTH sides are happy is long overdue.

SilverBride

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

Is it any wonder long-term players are burning out and leaving because the quest content is no longer engaging?

It is not a wonder. Long-term players of any game tend to burn out over time.

When the new wears off and you have done the same zones, and the same quests, and the same dungeons and trials, and the same events repeatedly they do lose their freshness and become stale. This is why games add new content and introduce new classes and other such features to liven things up again.

The quests aren't unengaging because they are too easy. They are unengaging as a biproduct of repetition.

WhyMustItBe

SilverBride wrote: »

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

Is it any wonder long-term players are burning out and leaving because the quest content is no longer engaging?

It is not a wonder. Long-term players of any game tend to burn out over time.

When the new wears off and you have done the same zones, and the same quests, and the same dungeons and trials, and the same events repeatedly they do lose their freshness and become stale. This is why games add new content and introduce new classes and other such features to liven things up again.

The quests aren't unengaging because they are too easy. They are unengaging as a biproduct of repetition.

Only that's not it. ZOS adds new zones/quests more frequently than almost any other MMO I have played, and I can tell you first hand, even in questing/overland greens, the (lack of) challenge is absolutely part of the reason for diminished engagement.

I am a 20+ year TES fan. I have played and modded every game since Morrowind, and still do to this day. When people still love the game for its story and substance but lack engagement with the content, there are reasons beyond simply having done the quest before. Especially when as I said the lack of new content is not the issue, since there is plenty.

In your mind should we just write off the burnouts and accept lower profit margins? At what point does adding a toggle to give both sides of the debate something they can enjoy engagement with and thus retain the greatest number of players become more important than sticking to our guns about "nobody" wanting this?

Because I think it is abundantly clear that myself and the people posting on threads like this do not equal "nobody," any more than "it would be difficult" equals "absolutely not, no, not ever."

SilverBride

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The quests aren't unengaging because they are too easy. They are unengaging as a biproduct of repetition.

Only that's not it.

That may not be it for some players, but it is for a lot.

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

In your mind should we just write off the burnouts and accept lower profit margins? At what point does adding a toggle to give both sides of the debate something they can enjoy engagement with and thus retain the greatest number of players become more important than sticking to our guns about "nobody" wanting this?

I have no thoughts of writing off anyone, as I have played MMO's for 20+ years and have experienced burnout myself. But developing content that benefits the majority would result in less of a profit loss than if the reverse were done. And the majority do not want harder overland as Rich stated in his Twitch stream.

[Edited to be more concise.]

trackdemon5512

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

Jackey wrote: »

It's just way too anticlimactic when the hyped up story boss turns out to be like a delve boss.

Part of the problem is that when they nerfed overland/quest content for One Tamriel, they went a bit too far. This is what a quest boss looks like for a lowbie character in quest greens now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-bdVoyIpfw

Is it any wonder long-term players are burning out and leaving because the quest content is no longer engaging?

Re-visiting the idea of an optional veteran mode toggle so BOTH sides are happy is long overdue.

They didn’t nerf the content with One Tamriel. Prior to One Tamriel each zone had its own levels for mob. 1-5 for Starter Islands, 5-15 for the next zone, etc. This went up to 50 for Coldharbour. Craglorn pushed that to VR16 which would later become CP160.

When One Tamriel came about it set every zone and enemy within it to CP160. It got rid of veteran points and made it easier to level CP and VR with just experience.

If you were under CP160 it modified your attributes to match that of a CP160 with caveats that the modifier diminished as you went up. Gear matched your level but if said gear was under your level you would have a harder time.

Once you hit CP160 you perfectly matched the zone. You were fighting enemies perfectly matched for your level as you had fully leveled up. You were actually experiencing the hardest content available but just in proper gear.

Why does it feel easier today? You have CP that goes thousands of values beyond the original max. Take out all of that CP and you still have the original game and the original difficulty.

And because the entire overland game is already CP160 it’s already the embodiment of what you’re arguing, a “veteran overland”.

There is no going beyond CP160. No enemies, no gear, no system designed for such. As it is now it’s impossible to make a “vet overland”. And to make a higher difficulty overland would not be as simple as just making a slider because there is nothing to adjust up or down. You have to make an entirely new system. That’s not simple for 8 years of content and ensuring that all systems work.

WhyMustItBe

SilverBride wrote: »

...developing content that benefits the majority would result in less of a profit loss than if the reverse were done.

That would be true if that is what people were asking for, but it isn't.

People are asking for a toggle. Read: A CHOICE. That would not affect the majority that prefer it how it is now in any way. If people were asking for veteran only questing/overland I could see that argument, as it would be effectively "taking something away" since those zones would not be available in normal mode. But people asking for a toggle don't want that.

It is actually pretty ironic if you think about it. The one serious concern I have heard is the one the devs mentioned, that they don't want to take away from the shard population. But therein lies the irony.

If, as the people against this request have repeatedly mentioned and even devs suggested, the number of people who want this is really so tiny, then it follows that it CAN'T affect the normal shard population in any significant way.

You can't argue that the number of grains of sand is tiny so it isn't worth adding to the sandbox, while at the same time arguing that adding them would overflow the sandbox.

The two arguments are logical contradictions.

SilverBride

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

People are asking for a toggle. Read: A CHOICE. That would not affect the majority that prefer it how it is now in any way. If people were asking for veteran only questing/overland I could see that argument, as it would be effectively "taking something away" since those zones would not be available in normal mode. But people asking for a toggle don't want that.

I realize some players want a toggle, but it is just not feasible. This what Rich had to say about it:

“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.

So, like I said, we went down that route. We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it.” - Rich Lambert

Parasaurolophus

@kargen27

A separate instance in overland would not be good for the game

Why? No worthy argument has ever been made against this. Yes, people are needed to kill WB or close the anchor. But the game is not focused only around wb and anchors, and the rest of the time people in overland do not cooperate.

Different rewards for different levels of difficulty would not be a good idea.

Why? This already exists in dungeons and trials and no one minds. Why should players who only care about story care about rewards?

The time needed to rework mechanics to make fights more compelling would be a poor investment given the likely returns

Other games do this and are very popular. Jesus, the most popular games in the world are pvp games.

WhyMustItBe

SilverBride wrote: »

I realize some players want a toggle, but it is just not feasible. This what Rich had to say about it:

“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.

So, like I said, we went down that route. We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it.” - Rich Lambert

I feel we keep ignoring the points about choice and not affecting shard population and going in circles here.

First, that bit about being difficult in no way means the same as "we will never consider this."

Second, the "we've been down this road" was referring to the PREVIOUS question you have left out, which is misleading. He was pretty clearly against veteran ONLY zones, which was the first question. But to assume this comment was in reference to the SEPARATE QUESTION about a toggle is disingenuous, and once again logically inconsistent.

How can we have "been down this road" if the game never HAD a toggle before? Clearly, you are trying to make it sound like Rich was giving that answer to the second question by omitting the first, yet it doesn't logically make sense as we have never been down the road of a toggle to go down it again.

The possibility of a toggle is still very much something we may see in the future, and I believe it would be the best thing for the game. The people who are leaving for lack of engagement would be happy, and the people who want things the same would be happy.

I think it is always better to compromise on a win-win than fight over what amounts to mostly semantics at this point.

kargen27

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

@kargen27

A separate instance in overland would not be good for the game

Why? No worthy argument has ever been made against this. Yes, people are needed to kill WB or close the anchor. But the game is not focused only around wb and anchors, and the rest of the time people in overland do not cooperate.

Different rewards for different levels of difficulty would not be a good idea.

Why? This already exists in dungeons and trials and no one minds. Why should players who only care about story care about rewards?

The time needed to rework mechanics to make fights more compelling would be a poor investment given the likely returns

Other games do this and are very popular. Jesus, the most popular games in the world are pvp games.

A worthy argument has been made. It would divide the player base and could make zones feel empty. Zones need to feel populated. A well populated zone goes a long ways in enticing new players to sticking around.

Trials and dungeons are things you do voluntarily. Overland is the very base of the game. We see players now that queue for vet dungeons when they really are not ready for them because of the rewards. This causes frustration for them in being unable to complete the content or frustration in the players that carry them. Sometimes both.

And about those rewards. How much better would they need to be to get people to move to the harder content? Exactly why would people that only want more engaging content need to be bribed into enjoying that harder content? Why would they care any more than people doing the story would care? If the rewards were say blue drops instead of green then probably nobody would care. But if that were the case why bother? If the rewards were much better then just like the dungeons and trials people not ready for the vet level would feel compelled to move to vet instead of missing out on the better rewards. Brings us back to all that frustration that isn't good for long term game play.

What other game reworked their entire base game to introduce whole new mechanics to the NPCs? How much did their player base increase after making the sweeping changes?

This has nothing at all to do with PvP. This is people asking for harder more compelling PvE content. Open world PvP is a whole different argument and also would not work in ESO.

Jackey

SilverBride wrote: »

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

People are asking for a toggle. Read: A CHOICE. That would not affect the majority that prefer it how it is now in any way. If people were asking for veteran only questing/overland I could see that argument, as it would be effectively "taking something away" since those zones would not be available in normal mode. But people asking for a toggle don't want that.

I realize some players want a toggle, but it is just not feasible. This what Rich had to say about it:

“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.

So, like I said, we went down that route. We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it.” - Rich Lambert

Yes, makes perfect sense. I get that they won't change old content, too late for such an investment.
But it would be nice if they could try it in a future quest, maybe even just a prologue quest.
Instanced quest area with a difficulty scaling. Could even be a daily quest with different rewards and achievements for some replay value.

trackdemon5512

How do you want to define a harder overworld?

Enemies Take Longer To Kill BUT Are The Same Combat Wise As They Are Now?
- If this is the case why don’t you nerf yourself as it’s already possible to do that in game. No need for a new system to be built with a ridiculous slider. You nerf yourself by not eating, taking out CP and attributes, using bad gear
- Advantages: You don’t need to privately instance overland keeping all players together. You don’t need to adjust every enemy in the game. You can extremely fine tune how difficult you want things without affecting everyone else.
- Disadvantages: No changes to enemy combat

Enemies Have New Attacks and Mechanics
- this would mean going back into every single enemy in the game and adding new attacks that are balanced.
- Advantages: It’s a fresher experience of original content
- Disadvantages: You would be forced to instance veteran and regular overland, splitting the population. That means split chat, wasting resources on a smaller amount of players, and a difficulty that isn’t scalable.

You can’t have both. It’s too much development for too little benefit.

BONUS:
Can someone point to a real game, single player or multiplayer, where increased difficulty has different attacks from the lower difficulty? I’m not talking about MMORPGs. I mean games from other genres where this was programmed. I personally cannot think of any where increased difficulty isn’t just increased enemy damage and decreased player resistances.

Jackey

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

BONUS:
Can someone point to a real game, single player or multiplayer, where increased difficulty has different attacks from the lower difficulty? I’m not talking about MMORPGs. I mean games from other genres where this was programmed. I personally cannot think of any where increased difficulty isn’t just increased enemy damage and decreased player resistances.

Fighting games generally makes the AI more unforgiving, same with RTS games.
Sports games and racing games don't have any damage or resistances so a more difficult AI is again the way to go.
You can probably think of many games now with that in mind.

Edit:
A more concrete answer.
Killing Floor 2's harder difficulties gives the ZEDs new abilities such as rally and faster movement speed. It also spawns new versions of ZEDs that are more difficult than the original versions.
None of that happens on the easier difficulties.

SilverBride

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

"A separate instance in overland would not be good for the game."

Why? No worthy argument has ever been made against this.

I have yet to see a convincing arguement for an optional veteran overland. A minority of players finding the fights boring isn't a good reason for such a drastic change.

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

"Different rewards for different levels of difficulty would not be a good idea."

Why? This already exists in dungeons and trials and no one minds. Why should players who only care about story care about rewards?

Overland and dungeons and trials are very different features with very different purposes. They cannot be equally compared.

And there are a lot of players who enjoy the story and also enjoy dungeons and trials, and housing and crafting and PvP.

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

"The time needed to rework mechanics to make fights more compelling would be a poor investment given the likely returns."

Other games do this and are very popular. Jesus, the most popular games in the world are pvp games.

This isn't other games.

Kamatsu

kargen27 wrote: »

What other game reworked their entire base game to introduce whole new mechanics to the NPCs? How much did their player base increase after making the sweeping changes?

Guild Wars 2 did this with it's 1st expansion "Heart of Thorns" - they made overland way harder, made mobs closer to each other, gave mobs more CC skills and better ai over what the base game had.

Result? Huge hemorrhaging of players resulting in a 66-67% loss of revenue for ANet.

Don't worry though, the loud minority here on the forums, which only represents a minority of active players, will tell you that spending huge amounts on money to develop either a toggle or different instance system will be way worth it for the extreme minority of player who would ever bother to utilize it.

Exactly as they told ANet prior to HoT expansion. That worked out well for ANet... NOT.

Also interesting to note how the arguments here are just going around and around in circles? People point out all the years of data, the other games that have listened to their woe to the "make it harder crow", the ESO dev's themselves saying "Nope" to any plans at all to change direction, the ESO dev's saying the data shows very little support for harder content, etc... but all you get back is "Well, they didn't say NO outright!", "We want this, so there obviously is demand... so Zenimax should spend big bucks on us dipsite all the evidence that this will lose more $ than they gain!", etc.

I also do find it amusing how they tell others to stop trying to 'shut them down' from expressing their opinion's... while simultaneously trying to shut those same ppl down themselves with their "Well we want it, so there is demand" & "They never said an outright NO!" type of comments.

A lot of this is likely due to what I call 'association bias' - ppl in general will hang around and associate with like-minded ppl. So those who want harder content will most likely play ESO & other online games with other ppl who like harder games... thus the majority of feedback they will see is what ppl like them think. Thus reinforcing the idea to them that their idea's / thinking is actually a majority / large group of people... when truth is, they are not.

Bealeb319

Craglorn is slightly harder than most other overland and yet no one is running around grinding there. Having harder overland does nothing for anyone if there isn't a reason to grind in it.

Blood_again

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

BONUS:
Can someone point to a real game, single player or multiplayer, where increased difficulty has different attacks from the lower difficulty? I’m not talking about MMORPGs. I mean games from other genres where this was programmed. I personally cannot think of any where increased difficulty isn’t just increased enemy damage and decreased player resistances.

Hades - with Pact of Punishment you can get some unexpected combos from boss.

Shadow of War - enemies can learn your repeating sequence and play counter it. (not implementable in ESO if you ask me)

Dragon Age - friendly fire in percent is > 0% on any difficulty except the lowest one. (phahaha, lets just do it it ESO and I'm off)

mickeyx

Vhozek wrote: »

I think we should sit back and take a second look at this game's overworld to make it more interesting and exciting. Bumping up the mob difficulty seems to be a good start. I really doubt many people would complain. The only issue is that it can't just be done as a lone update but rather paired up with a sort of re-launch or massive event advertising the game. What do you think? What else could be implemented to make leveling exciting and not just a delay to end-game content? Because that's basically what it is, it's just a delay not even a challenging obstacle.

New World just came out. Wait till it's population takes a nose dive in a month or two. People are already complaining about mandatory grouping for main quest and how no one wants to group up and everyone busy grinding solo to lvl 60. Lol

I must also add playing New World with its terrible animation locked combat, terrible inventory and travelling system made me appreciate ESO even more. Don't be surprised if New World ends up with half of its servers empty in couple of months.

kargen27

mickeyx wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

I think we should sit back and take a second look at this game's overworld to make it more interesting and exciting. Bumping up the mob difficulty seems to be a good start. I really doubt many people would complain. The only issue is that it can't just be done as a lone update but rather paired up with a sort of re-launch or massive event advertising the game. What do you think? What else could be implemented to make leveling exciting and not just a delay to end-game content? Because that's basically what it is, it's just a delay not even a challenging obstacle.

New World just came out. Wait till it's population takes a nose dive in a month or two. People are already complaining about mandatory grouping for main quest and how no one wants to group up and everyone busy grinding solo to lvl 60. Lol

I must also add playing New World with its terrible animation locked combat, terrible inventory and travelling system made me appreciate ESO even more. Don't be surprised if New World ends up with half of its servers empty in couple of months.

I think the players asking for open world PvP here might be happy with New World. I do like watching trees fall over as players harvest wood but that isn't going to be a deciding factor in how long I play. Fishing is a lot more fun in New World so I am probably going to level that.
There really isn't any large scale PvP battles and that is what I wanted to see so a little disappointed there. My schedule real world makes it tough for me to actually plan something in a game and I'm not going to be an elite member of a large company so the 50v50 battles are probably out for me. Even if I could do them they are times and only 50v50 so not what I would call a large scale fight. I liked the fights we used to have in Cyrodiil on the bridge that could last for a couple of hours with all three factions involved and way more than just 100 participating. Even the fights we had until recently at key keeps though the numbers were not huge lasted sometimes for a very long time.

I have two ESO accounts that I played fairly regular. I've put my 2nd account on hold for a bit while I try New World. I knew going in it wasn't going to replace the time I spend with my main account. Now I'm not sure how long it will occupy my time at all.
You are right the combat in New World is really clunky compared to ESO. Over there a self heal can be a three button process with a delay at the end before the heal actually happens and you can't move when the delay is taking place. It is really slow and I find myself clicking buttons well before I should.
Inventory and travel also much better here. I do have the crafting bag though so that helps me here. Also because all the factions while fighting can use global chat the chat there is really toxic. After every fight chat seems to explode with all kinds of hate.

Amottica

SilverBride wrote: »

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.)

There are Four important statements he says during that segment.

1. Rich commented that a huge (very strong emphasis) portion of the player base just wants to do the story without having to struggle with difficult things. Zeni
2. Rich noted that he understands some players want more difficulty, that he does as well (and he actually does play ESO on a personal account). However, he said the data does not lie (concerning that a huge portion of the player base is not interested in the difficulty when doing stories.
3. That the game has never been more successful than it is today and a lot of that has to do with the freedom they gave player has (with 1T).

4. He pretty much stated it is a ton of work to create an optional difficulty which seemed to indicate they were not interested in doing that work for such a small portion of the player base (not those words especially). He reiterated that they had created more challenging veteran zones at launch and people did not want to play them.

NagualV

mickeyx wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

I think we should sit back and take a second look at this game's overworld to make it more interesting and exciting. Bumping up the mob difficulty seems to be a good start. I really doubt many people would complain. The only issue is that it can't just be done as a lone update but rather paired up with a sort of re-launch or massive event advertising the game. What do you think? What else could be implemented to make leveling exciting and not just a delay to end-game content? Because that's basically what it is, it's just a delay not even a challenging obstacle.

New World just came out. Wait till it's population takes a nose dive in a month or two. People are already complaining about mandatory grouping for main quest and how no one wants to group up and everyone busy grinding solo to lvl 60. Lol

I must also add playing New World with its terrible animation locked combat, terrible inventory and travelling system made me appreciate ESO even more. Don't be surprised if New World ends up with half of its servers empty in couple of months.

...its better and more fun than what we have here(pvp perspective)....there may be complaints, but are they more than all the pvp complaints in THIS game?

Different market....pve people may not like it, Eso is way better pve content wise(quests, lore, dungeons), but end game pvp, honestly, tell me what we have here?

Playing NW made me appreciate what we DONT have here....but as I always say, if you're having fun here, then that's a good thing. I'm not, and many others agree with me.

Iccotak

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Did you not read what I wrote? Debuff food is no different than just buffing enemy stats - it's no better than the days of Cadwell's S&G.
The problem is mechanics - not stats

Yes. And I proposed a more realistic solution that met the criteria that Rich was worried about.

I'm not saying to overhaul the old bosses because at this point that is unrealistic - but what I am saying is that the problem is almost entirely a Mechanics issue, not one of stats.

- and that your "solution" is in reality a Non-Solution, because it is no different than wearing bad gear, minimal skills, no cp none of which solved the problem of poorly designed mechanics. Just handicapping yourself does not solve the issue that people are complaining about.

It is different than handicapping yourself with gear because it allows you to push beyond just running naked would do. And yes it is a solution to this issue, games have done it to add additional challenge to things for years. That you personally wouldn't enjoy having to deal with existing mechanics doesn't change that this is a tried, true method of increasing difficulty and one with a LONG history in this franchise.

I don't view it your way at all. I don't need new mechs and don't find it reasonable to expect them to spend that much time on it when the vast majority of the playerbase doesn't want it. They have already made it clear that's not gonna happen.

Going to point at Pre- One Tamriel to show that the majority didn’t enjoy it.

Like what you’re proposing is no different than the very thing that others have said was bad for the game. Or from naked builds because it’s still a self imposed handicap.

It’s not that I wouldn’t enjoy the mechanics but rather the lack of mechanics.

And again I am not saying that ZOS should overhaul the entire games mechanics.

What I’m saying is that it doesn’t come down to stats and that going forward ZOS would have to handle things like the main story differently to make it enjoyable for a wider audience.

Furthermore ESO is not the single player games and works differently from say Skyrim.
One major difference being that enemies & player were of similar speed. It makes sense to just buff stats

BUT

ESO has very different gameplay from both players and enemies- you cannot expect the same solution to work especially when there is already evidence that it doesn’t.

BONUS:
Can someone point to a real game, single player or multiplayer, where increased difficulty has different attacks from the lower difficulty? I’m not talking about MMORPGs. I mean games from other genres where this was programmed. I personally cannot think of any where increased difficulty isn’t just increased enemy damage and decreased player resistances.

ESO literally does this with Dungeon & Trial Bosses

spartaxoxo

Iccotak wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Did you not read what I wrote? Debuff food is no different than just buffing enemy stats - it's no better than the days of Cadwell's S&G.
The problem is mechanics - not stats

Yes. And I proposed a more realistic solution that met the criteria that Rich was worried about.

I'm not saying to overhaul the old bosses because at this point that is unrealistic - but what I am saying is that the problem is almost entirely a Mechanics issue, not one of stats.

- and that your "solution" is in reality a Non-Solution, because it is no different than wearing bad gear, minimal skills, no cp none of which solved the problem of poorly designed mechanics. Just handicapping yourself does not solve the issue that people are complaining about.

It is different than handicapping yourself with gear because it allows you to push beyond just running naked would do. And yes it is a solution to this issue, games have done it to add additional challenge to things for years. That you personally wouldn't enjoy having to deal with existing mechanics doesn't change that this is a tried, true method of increasing difficulty and one with a LONG history in this franchise.

I don't view it your way at all. I don't need new mechs and don't find it reasonable to expect them to spend that much time on it when the vast majority of the playerbase doesn't want it. They have already made it clear that's not gonna happen.

Going to point at Pre- One Tamriel to show that the majority didn’t enjoy it.

The majority doesn't like difficult content at all, whether through that or through new mechanics. They stay far away from it. And it's not just a small minority, it's the vast majority.

But if 2/3rds weren't using it, that means 1/3rd did. They enjoyed it. Some of them have even directly pointed at Craglorn as the difficulty level they are seeking when making these threads. A debuff food would give them that without taking anything away from the vast majority of players. It would mean that the devs don't have to spend a lot of time on it, don't have to worry about a split population, and don't have to care about the incentive problem since they don't have to justify a massive amount of resources being used on something the vast majority of players would never touch.

You need to abandon the idea that something that would require such insane development time as giving new mechs and whole new zones would do and focus on ideas that actually meet the restrictions that Rich set forth.

Which are:
Low development time
Low player utilization
Cannot mess with the current zones, which Rich states is the reason for their game's success. So you can't modify existing zones and cannot make a new one.

They have made it very clear that the idea cannot do those things. So make it work.

A toggle with new mechs is a NO because it would require the creation of a new zone. And that is a hard no. Too few people are interested.

trackdemon5512

Iccotak wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Did you not read what I wrote? Debuff food is no different than just buffing enemy stats - it's no better than the days of Cadwell's S&G.
The problem is mechanics - not stats

Yes. And I proposed a more realistic solution that met the criteria that Rich was worried about.

I'm not saying to overhaul the old bosses because at this point that is unrealistic - but what I am saying is that the problem is almost entirely a Mechanics issue, not one of stats.

- and that your "solution" is in reality a Non-Solution, because it is no different than wearing bad gear, minimal skills, no cp none of which solved the problem of poorly designed mechanics. Just handicapping yourself does not solve the issue that people are complaining about.

It is different than handicapping yourself with gear because it allows you to push beyond just running naked would do. And yes it is a solution to this issue, games have done it to add additional challenge to things for years. That you personally wouldn't enjoy having to deal with existing mechanics doesn't change that this is a tried, true method of increasing difficulty and one with a LONG history in this franchise.

I don't view it your way at all. I don't need new mechs and don't find it reasonable to expect them to spend that much time on it when the vast majority of the playerbase doesn't want it. They have already made it clear that's not gonna happen.

Going to point at Pre- One Tamriel to show that the majority didn’t enjoy it.

Like what you’re proposing is no different than the very thing that others have said was bad for the game. Or from naked builds because it’s still a self imposed handicap.

It’s not that I wouldn’t enjoy the mechanics but rather the lack of mechanics.

And again I am not saying that ZOS should overhaul the entire games mechanics.

What I’m saying is that it doesn’t come down to stats and that going forward ZOS would have to handle things like the main story differently to make it enjoyable for a wider audience.

Furthermore ESO is not the single player games and works differently from say Skyrim.
One major difference being that enemies & player were of similar speed. It makes sense to just buff stats

BUT

ESO has very different gameplay from both players and enemies- you cannot expect the same solution to work especially when there is already evidence that it doesn’t.

BONUS:
Can someone point to a real game, single player or multiplayer, where increased difficulty has different attacks from the lower difficulty? I’m not talking about MMORPGs. I mean games from other genres where this was programmed. I personally cannot think of any where increased difficulty isn’t just increased enemy damage and decreased player resistances.

ESO literally does this with Dungeon & Trial Bosses

Yes I know ESO does that with trial and dungeon bosses. What I’m looking for are other games that do so or apply it to an entire game.

What I’m seeing is (despite the claims of some here that adding a vet overland is easy) there are incredibly few instances of such actually being implemented. Most games go the route of increasing enemy damage output, decreasing player hardiness/vitality. None essentially actually program optional mechanics that might not be experienced. The ones that do don’t do it anywhere close to the extent that ESO does with normal and veteran instanced combat.

Making a vet overland would be a massive undertaking.

Xorxe

Hmm, some ZOS moderator send me here to see interesting discusion about buffdoors, but I can't find it. I'm dissapoint :-/