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
-
Blood_again✭✭✭✭✭@Blood_again
The problem that is immediately going to come up his questions about incentive.
Sure, there are those who will do it for just the heck of it. But if we’re talking about adding some thing to overland that makes it harder then there needs to be a good enough justification for the developers to spend resources on it.
whenever they implement a new way to play the game, or a new activity, then they implement incentives to motivate players to participate. Lead Director himself said this.
BTW my idea avoids any changes in locations. It changes battle functions only and affects player character, not overland itself. Less development - less resources. Way easier so sell to devs
Well, Lead Director wants to know, how they could sold us the thing. Let people, who ask the buff, tell about the reward they want. What would motivate them to buy the overland buff?
I can help a bit with ideas. Like "Perfected Overland Sets", "Unique collectibles and titles", "Double exp". But really it's up to them.
At least if Rich Lambert don't believe in swearing "we want it, everybody wants it" on the forum (I can get it really
) then we can ask him how players can prove it. Voting? List of signatures? Also these ways could let askers meet the reality about how many people really want it
As for monetization question, I trust to ZoS. They don't need my Ideas how to put that buff behind a paywall.0 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Franchise408 wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »Franchise408 wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »There have been numerous threads on this topic and nothing has changed. If anything the opposition has only become stronger with less supporting the idea.
I know it is a disappointment to some, but the majority don't want this, and it is just not feasible. Waiting a week isn't going to change that.
It is plenty feasible.
The foundation of the game changed once already due to player feedback. Persistent games make changes all the time, even if devs do say something won't happen. These changes absolutely are feasible, and we will continue to speak out in favor of them for as long as it takes.
The foundation of this game changed once due very few playing 2/3 of the content. One Tamriel saved this game and it is doing better now than it ever has.
And as has been pointed out to you countless times, your take is revisionist history of what actually happened.
It isn't. The devs themselves, who have the engagement numbers, flat out stated that the game became more successful thanks to being easier and that the "VAST majority" of players do not like difficult content.
Anyone who says otherwise is just incorrect. It's an objective fact.Edited by spartaxoxo on 8 October 2021 20:432 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭
@Iccotak
Oop my bad, I meant 3%, forgot to move the decimal point.
0.03 x 19,000,000 = 570,000
I didn’t say 19 million active users. I said 19 million registered accounts. Back in 2016 there were 4.5 million registered accounts.
The changes to make ESO more accessible to all were made in late 2016. From there the number of registered accounts has grown since then.
It is only logical that such growth, while always increasing, can be immensely attributed to the change to the casual play. Furthermore, content over the last 4 years has for the most part continued in the tradition of casual content.
Now it doesn’t make sense that those looking for a hardcore experience would stay with the game. Many of those players would leave for other IPs. And those that do join and stay on obviously for the most part must not be part of that hardcore overworld desiring population. If that were the case many would have quit at some point in the past because it never came to fruition.
My point stands. Statistically it’s far more likely that the population of ESO as it is today is more wanting of casual and generally accessible overworld content than a hardcore overworld experience. And in a percentage much greater than the 66.6% that was back in 2016.
3 -
Lodrik✭✭✭Overland is so damn easy, that my grandma can beat it. i stopped questing in Eso since 3 years or somewhat, because i cant take it seriously when the endboss of a whole chapter dies in 3 sec.
Even with a new character and without any cp...its to easy. When i read about ppl that die at 1105 cp from 3 imps attacking him...thats embarrassing. My cp character regs more then this would dmg him and no he is not a tank.
Everyone that thinks Eso's overland is hard enough hasnt really played the game. Even as a casual player, this level of difficulty is a joke.
Edited by Lodrik on 8 October 2021 20:518 -
Franchise408✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »Franchise408 wrote: »And as has been pointed out to you countless times, your take is revisionist history of what actually happened. I was around from beta and launch as well, and the game wasn't in bad shape because it was "hard", the game was in bad shape for a number of reasons. Among the biggest reasons why ESO was saved was because of dropping the mandatory subscription, combined with players no longer being restricted from each other due to alliances. NOT because it got easier.
The events that led to One Tamriel were from early ESO, but are relevent enough today that Rich Lambert used them as examples in a Twitch stream from a month ago to explain why we do not have veteran overland, optional or otherwise.
I came back to ESO after One Tamriel because it got easier. I could finally enjoy the story without constantly struggling. And I have always subscribed, whether it was mandatory or not, so that was never a factor for me, or the many other subscribers who are still playing.
You continue to speak anecdotally and pass it off as widespread fact.
Why *you* quit and why *you* returned is irrelevant, just as whether I play overland quests or not is irrelevant. We are individual people that don't make up either narrative.
I played at launch. I played at beta. Overland questing was never anything that could be considered "difficult". It is one of the reasons why I left after the first couple months - there was 0 challenge or 0 engaging content. It wasn't until I started to discover dungeons on about my 2nd or 3rd attempt to play this game that I actually found something worth sticking around for. If questing was the extent of the challenge in this game, I never would have returned. As it is, I have no incentive or motivation to buy chapters as long as it continues to cater to people who want to face absolutely 0 challenge or resistance from the bad guys with mindlessly easy questing, content like companions, etc. Blackwood was a waste of my money, and I won't make that mistake again until they start to create core content that engages me as well.4 -
Sylvermynx✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I have never been able to kill a quest end boss in 3 seconds. In fact, I died so many times to Molag Bal, to Mulaamnir, and to that damn undead dragon (not even a quest end boss), that I will never do any of those quests again. Just today, my 400 CP first account EU main died to two ogres. I cannot keep a rotation going at my age, my stiffness of fingers, and my satellite lag. I have been playing over 3 years, and yes, improving - a year ago, I was still dying to three overland mobs, though I could manage two.
It would be REALLY nice if my bears were better tanks and held aggro - the way my hunter pets in WoW did.Edited by Sylvermynx on 8 October 2021 21:135 -
Parasaurolophus✭✭✭✭✭
✭Ravensilver wrote: »
It's great that you like overland. But there are a large number of non-casual players who don't play beyond the crafting stations in Vivec.PC/EU2 -
Ravensilver✭✭✭✭✭
✭Parasaurolophus wrote: »It's great that you like overland. But there are a large number of non-casual players who don't play beyond the crafting stations in Vivec.
"large number of non-casual players"
Define "large number". What are your sources? How many players? EU or NA?
"large number" is not something that a company, that wants to earn money with its product, can work with.2 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭Overland is so damn easy, that my grandma can beat it. i stopped questing in Eso since 3 years or somewhat, because i cant take it seriously when the endboss of a whole chapter dies in 3 sec.
Even with a new character and without any cp...its to easy. When i read about ppl that die at 1105 cp from 3 imps attacking him...thats embarrassing. My cp character regs more then this would dmg him and no he is not a tank.
Everyone that thinks Eso's overland is hard enough hasnt really played the game. Even as a casual player, this level of difficulty is a joke.
The number of players, in any potential gaming population, looking for a casual experience always vastly outnumbers the hardcore. Skyrim’s success can really be attributed to the game being far more accessible than older Elder Scrolls titles.
ESO itself had to remodel itself after Skyrim’s success which initially just included adding a proper first-person mode to it. Yeah that’s right, the original ESO didn’t have a first-person mode and it turned out to be significant development cost that resulted in a huge amount of overall player satisfaction.
Fast forward a few years and making the content more accessible to all kinds of players was a huge help in keeping the game alive. It’s no secret that the PC version struggled and those were more likely to be the hardcore players. The strength of the console releases saved this game.
And there is more proof than ever today that casual is far more lucrative than hardcore. Just look at how Genshin Impact’s casual approachability has not only been incredibly lucrative but also brought far more players to the RPG scene than in years.3 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Ravensilver wrote: »Parasaurolophus wrote: »It's great that you like overland. But there are a large number of non-casual players who don't play beyond the crafting stations in Vivec.
"large number of non-casual players"
Define "large number". What are your sources? How many players? EU or NA?
"large number" is not something that a company, that wants to earn money with its product, can work with.
'People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff. I get 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.' - Rich LambertPCNA2 -
Parasaurolophus✭✭✭✭✭
✭Ravensilver wrote: »Parasaurolophus wrote: »It's great that you like overland. But there are a large number of non-casual players who don't play beyond the crafting stations in Vivec.
"large number of non-casual players"
Define "large number". What are your sources? How many players? EU or NA?
"large number" is not something that a company, that wants to earn money with its product, can work with.
Why is everyone on this thread so fond of counting ZoS money? Do you have a financial statement on hand? I know there are a lot of high-end players who buy a lot of crowns because they are involved in the game. Why should I, as a consumer, care at all? I see a lot of successful games around that have interesting overland content. But for some reason, eso this cannot. The most expensive game with the most expensive donation has the most empty and boring locations that can be cleaned in a couple of evenings.
It has been said many times that the problem is not only difficulty. Craglorn's problem is not difficulty, but design. If Craglorn's problem was difficulty, then why would ZoS continue to release the same Adventure Zones with mini-dungeons and several unique activities, but with less difficulty? It's the same with IC. The problem with IC is not that it combines pvp and pve, there are a lot of games where this idea works. The problem is only in design, not in concept.
It looks like ZoS just said to themselves - ok, we don't know how to make interesting locations, we failed twice. We just won't risk it anymore. We will recruit the population with events, daily revisions and loud announcements.Edited by Parasaurolophus on 8 October 2021 22:25PC/EU4 -
kargen27✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Parasaurolophus wrote: »Parasaurolophus wrote: »@kargen27
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.A separate instance in overland would not be good for the game
Why? This already exists in dungeons and trials and no one minds. Why should players who only care about story care about rewards?Different rewards for different levels of difficulty would not be a good idea.
Other games do this and are very popular. Jesus, the most popular games in the world are pvp games.The time needed to rework mechanics to make fights more compelling would be a poor investment given the likely returns
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.
These threads live for so long because several people just don't listen to each other's arguments and the whole conversation starts anew.
Locations are already divided by mirrors. When there are too many people in one location, the game creates another instance for the players to get into. Now imagine that we have a new dlc release and at the moment there are 4 instances of the location, filled with 200 players each (in fact, it is not known for certain how many players can fit one instance of the location in eso). Now let's imagine we have a version of vet. overlend for the new dlc. Some of the players are there now. Now we have 3 normal instances and 1 veteran, or 2/2. Does not matter. One mirror can only accommodate a limited number of players. You argue that a highpopulation location attracts new players, like all players are playing overland. But this is not so ... High-end players, having completed all the quests of the new dlc, as well as having received all the achievements (all this takes me no more than a week), then leave the location, returning their character back to Vivec for crafting dailys. Ta Daaam! The End! There is absolutely no point in returning to the location, there are no activities that would be attractive to the high-end player.
Why does ZoS give us all the motives for releasing a new dlc at once? Why do we have these boring events every month where there is nothing but 2x awards and new cosmetics? Because ZoS knows very well how quickly dlc`s spend their resource and it is necessary to somehow artificially keep the population.
Just like dungeons, we want an optional function of vet overland. I described above why this will not affect the player population. Please don't ignore this.
About what you said about the awards and the rework of old locations. I still think that there is no need to rework the old locations. They will also remain boring. No one wants to return to Deshaan or Auridon, because the mobs now are stronger there. No one needs it.
I believe that the ideal solution would be to create a new Adventure Zones like Craglorn, with many different activities with different rewards. Of course, with the normal and veteran version. When there was an event, many players wrote that the Craglorn experience was something new and fun for them. Especially players talk about Shada`s Tear, although in addition to this, there are several more similar instances in Craglorn.
And I cited pvp games as an example that the challenge in games does not interfere with their popularity and profitability in any way.
You explained why it might not affect new content for a month or so. I'm beginning to think the solution here (I want more hard content also) might be more dungeons with the climax of some of the side stories taking place in those dungeons. Maybe shrink the overland zone a bit but make up for it with more dungeons. Like you said things are already in place for normal and vet in dungeons. I still even with new zones don't think a vet overland would be popular enough to make it worth the extra time and resources.
High end players (as I define them) are a very small minority of the ESO population. They may not return to content after doing the quests. Most players return to gather resources, get skyshards, surveys, do antiquities and any number of other things ZoS has added to try and keep people going back to those zones. ZoS puts these things in to get us to return to those zones so they feel populated. Why would they want to undermine that by splitting the zones? I know you are talking about going forward but eventually those new zones are going to be not so new and they are going to need the same help to get players to return.
I wouldn't mind seeing a full year devoted to a zone similar to Craglorn where there is harder base content. The problem is new content is usually used to draw in new players so they have to keep that in mind. And I still don't think dividing into normal and vet would be a good long term idea.and then the parrot said, "must be the water mines green too."2 -
Parasaurolophus✭✭✭✭✭
✭SilverBride wrote: »Ravensilver wrote: »Parasaurolophus wrote: »It's great that you like overland. But there are a large number of non-casual players who don't play beyond the crafting stations in Vivec.
"large number of non-casual players"
Define "large number". What are your sources? How many players? EU or NA?
"large number" is not something that a company, that wants to earn money with its product, can work with.
'People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff. I get 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.' - Rich Lambert
I also watched Slashlurk streams. However, I have heard some things that are not written here. And worth it. I can't give a proof right now, but Rich said that players play for an average of six weeks. Do you understand? Right? Casual players, for ZoS, are not the kind who are into questing, housing, roleplaying and fearing dungeons and trials even on normal difficulty. These are all the players involved. But most of the ZoS players are those who buy the game, play it for a few weeks, and then maybe go back to the next dlc for a couple more weeks. There are no such players on this forum, because they are not sufficiently involved in the game to monitor the forum. It doesn't matter to them.
Let me give you an example of how bad this is for all categories of players. Look at Vvardenfell. For some reason, no one talks about this, but do you remember those wonderful side quest lines? About Naryu and Veya? About Sun-in-Shadows? About Revus Demnevanni and his attempts to revive the egg mine? These were the best quests in the whole game, everyone who went through them was delighted, including myself. Nobody complained about them, everyone liked these long side quest lines. We got to know the characters better, immersed ourselves in stories better. It was good that in addition to the main quest there were a few more side chains ... ZoS abandoned this concept. There were no such lines already in Summerset. And something tells me that the reason is just that the casual players just didn't complete them to the end. Therefore, new locations again filled dozens of short and hard to remember quests.
Even the Crownsctor. Where are the new hairstyles and jewelry? Why is it the same every month? It's simple ... It is much easier and more economical to return old items to the store for a limited time to a new wave of players than to create new ones.
Therefore, when they say on the forum that the game is for casual players, think that ZoS most likely cares not about the casual players we know.PC/EU3 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Parasaurolophus wrote: »Ravensilver wrote: »
It's great that you like overland. But there are a large number of non-casual players who don't play beyond the crafting stations in Vivec.
The vast majority of players prefer and use the Overland. The people who want it harder in a small minority, straight from the devs mouths. People really need to understand this before making suggestions, as there seems to be a common misconception that the number of players who want this is large. It is not. The vast majority want the easy content.
If ZOS were to ever implement a solution it MUST not interfere with the development of the new content and MUST not split that population up too much. It's the only way we'll ever have a chance at more difficulty in the Overland. At all.
Edited by spartaxoxo on 8 October 2021 22:332 -
Parasaurolophus✭✭✭✭✭
✭spartaxoxo wrote: »Parasaurolophus wrote: »Ravensilver wrote: »
It's great that you like overland. But there are a large number of non-casual players who don't play beyond the crafting stations in Vivec.
The vast majority of players prefer and use the Overland. The people who want it harder in a small minority, straight from the devs mouths. People really need to understand this before making suggestions, as there seems to be a common misconception that the number of players who want this is large. It is not. The vast majority want the easy content.
Or maybe just players who want gameplay just leave the game after completing two or three locations and realizing that it won't be any more fun? This is called survivorship bias. Sometimes I think I wouldn't be playing this game if it wasn't called the Elder Scrolls. I love this universe a lot, but the visual novel genre is not mine at all.Edited by Parasaurolophus on 8 October 2021 22:37PC/EU4 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Parasaurolophus wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »Parasaurolophus wrote: »Ravensilver wrote: »
It's great that you like overland. But there are a large number of non-casual players who don't play beyond the crafting stations in Vivec.
The vast majority of players prefer and use the Overland. The people who want it harder in a small minority, straight from the devs mouths. People really need to understand this before making suggestions, as there seems to be a common misconception that the number of players who want this is large. It is not. The vast majority want the easy content.
Or maybe just players who want gameplay just leave the game after completing two or three locations and realizing that it won't be any more fun? This is called survivorship bias. Sometimes I think I wouldn't be playing this game if it wasn't called the Elder Scrolls. I love this universe a lot, but the visual novel genre is not mine at all.
It's a bad idea to sacrifice the vast majority of your playerbase to chase after players that don't like your game and already left.12 -
Parasaurolophus✭✭✭✭✭
✭spartaxoxo wrote: »Parasaurolophus wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »Parasaurolophus wrote: »Ravensilver wrote: »
It's great that you like overland. But there are a large number of non-casual players who don't play beyond the crafting stations in Vivec.
The vast majority of players prefer and use the Overland. The people who want it harder in a small minority, straight from the devs mouths. People really need to understand this before making suggestions, as there seems to be a common misconception that the number of players who want this is large. It is not. The vast majority want the easy content.
Or maybe just players who want gameplay just leave the game after completing two or three locations and realizing that it won't be any more fun? This is called survivorship bias. Sometimes I think I wouldn't be playing this game if it wasn't called the Elder Scrolls. I love this universe a lot, but the visual novel genre is not mine at all.
It's a bad idea to sacrifice the vast majority of your playerbase to chase after players that don't like your game and already left.
No sacrifice needed ... We're asking for an option. And we are asking for more than just stranger mobs. We say that Overland lacks content and different activities. Are you against that too? I understand that people have different opinions on this matter, someone is talking about a slider, someone is about food, someone is about a separate instance. easy to get confused. But it is not important. The important thing is that we want to show how absurd the gameplay is in overland.Edited by Parasaurolophus on 8 October 2021 22:46PC/EU3 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Parasaurolophus wrote: »I also watched Slashlurk streams. However, I have heard some things that are not written here. And worth it. I can't give a proof right now, but Rich said that players play for an average of six weeks.
This game wouldn't survive and be thriving as it is now if players only played an average of six weeks. Please try to find the source for that.Edited by SilverBride on 8 October 2021 22:50PCNA1 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Parasaurolophus wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »Parasaurolophus wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »Parasaurolophus wrote: »Ravensilver wrote: »
It's great that you like overland. But there are a large number of non-casual players who don't play beyond the crafting stations in Vivec.
The vast majority of players prefer and use the Overland. The people who want it harder in a small minority, straight from the devs mouths. People really need to understand this before making suggestions, as there seems to be a common misconception that the number of players who want this is large. It is not. The vast majority want the easy content.
Or maybe just players who want gameplay just leave the game after completing two or three locations and realizing that it won't be any more fun? This is called survivorship bias. Sometimes I think I wouldn't be playing this game if it wasn't called the Elder Scrolls. I love this universe a lot, but the visual novel genre is not mine at all.
It's a bad idea to sacrifice the vast majority of your playerbase to chase after players that don't like your game and already left.
No sacrifice needed ... We're asking for an option. And we are asking for more than just stranger mobs. We say that Overland lacks content and different activities. Are you against that too? I understand that people have different opinions on this matter, someone is talking about a slider, someone is about food, someone is about a separate instance. easy to get confused. But it is not important. The important thing is that we want to show how absurd the gameplay is in overland.
You are asking for a sacrifice because you're asking for development time that won't be spent on new content for the casuals, and to split the playerbase which will make things difficult for them to find groups to do some of the stuff you need groups to do.
That "optional" setting has downsides for casuals that you're not acknowledging and that devs have already stated makes it a deal breaker. Go back to the drawing board with a compromise solution that would actually work or continue to hear "no" are basically your options.3 -
Parasaurolophus✭✭✭✭✭
✭SilverBride wrote: »Parasaurolophus wrote: »I also watched Slashlurk streams. However, I have heard some things that are not written here. And worth it. I can't give a proof right now, but Rich said that players play for an average of six weeks.
This game wouldn't survive and be thriving as it is now if players only played an average of six weeks. Please try to find the source for that.
I meant that most of the players, on average, do not stay in the game for more than a few weeks. This is basically the reality of the game industry today. But you shouldn't think that the game won't survive. In the end, these players spend some money. And most likely the profit comes at the expense of the mass scale. I will definitely find a proof when I have time.Edited by Parasaurolophus on 8 October 2021 23:00PC/EU0 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »Parasaurolophus wrote: »I also watched Slashlurk streams. However, I have heard some things that are not written here. And worth it. I can't give a proof right now, but Rich said that players play for an average of six weeks.
This game wouldn't survive and be thriving as it is now if players only played an average of six weeks. Please try to find the source for that.
I wouldn't doubt that a lot of players are doing that. They buy every dlc and chapter, beat it, then come back when the next one drops. Since they are constantly coming in and out and spending money while doing so, they still support the game financially quite a bit.Edited by spartaxoxo on 8 October 2021 22:591 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Parasaurolophus wrote: »I meant that most of the players, on average, do not stay in the game for more than a few weeks. This is basically the reality of the game industry today. But you shouldn't think that the game won't survive. In the end, these players spend some money. And most likely the profit comes at the expense of the mass scale. I will definitely find a proof when I have time.
I had never even considered that this is how some were playing. I stay active in a game until I'm not and don't tend to come in and out like that.Edited by SilverBride on 8 October 2021 23:07PCNA1 -
kargen27✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Parasaurolophus wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »Parasaurolophus wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »Parasaurolophus wrote: »Ravensilver wrote: »
It's great that you like overland. But there are a large number of non-casual players who don't play beyond the crafting stations in Vivec.
The vast majority of players prefer and use the Overland. The people who want it harder in a small minority, straight from the devs mouths. People really need to understand this before making suggestions, as there seems to be a common misconception that the number of players who want this is large. It is not. The vast majority want the easy content.
Or maybe just players who want gameplay just leave the game after completing two or three locations and realizing that it won't be any more fun? This is called survivorship bias. Sometimes I think I wouldn't be playing this game if it wasn't called the Elder Scrolls. I love this universe a lot, but the visual novel genre is not mine at all.
It's a bad idea to sacrifice the vast majority of your playerbase to chase after players that don't like your game and already left.
No sacrifice needed ... We're asking for an option. And we are asking for more than just stranger mobs. We say that Overland lacks content and different activities. Are you against that too? I understand that people have different opinions on this matter, someone is talking about a slider, someone is about food, someone is about a separate instance. easy to get confused. But it is not important. The important thing is that we want to show how absurd the gameplay is in overland.
Overland may lack different activities but that is why we have everything else. Trials also lack different activities. Overland is for the lore and gathering for the most part. You get the story and you advance your skill lines. You get to kill some things along the way or have to kill some things along the way depending on your point of view. I would like to see a way to have a more difficult overland experience but I understand why at this point in the game it simply is not viable. So maybe the answer is to ask for more of the other activities outside of overland.and then the parrot said, "must be the water mines green too."3 -
Eridanus✭✭✭I haven't read the entire thread but here are some more points:
-The lack of difficulty alienates a certain type of player. The game being too easy is a very common complain, not only on the forums, but among people who have tried ESO and got tired of it, partially because of this reason. Of course, the players who are bored by the difficulty are way more likely to abandon the game, so saying that the majority of active players are fine with the current state of overland doesn't tell the full picture, as you must also take the potential players into account. I'm a new player myself and I'm increasingly getting burned out of the game, as unfortunately much of the otherwise engaging content bores me because of the lack of challenge.
-Players who are ok with the current difficulty and don't have a strong opinion about it could potentially enjoy a veteran version as well: being able to enjoy a more relaxed difficulty at a times and also challenging content that requires more of your attention and to improve your skills, is not contradictory. How many people are actually adamantly against having such optional content? Perhaps they are a loud minority themselves, after all.
-Vet versions and difficult content already exist and keeps getting added into the game. It's not the majority of it, but if they actively develop this type of content, it means that the players who enjoy difficulty aren't such an extremely tiny but loud minority, like some users keep suggesting (or at the very least, they're a profitable minority). In fact, DLC dungeons are more difficult than the ones in the base game; why would they do that if no one wanted it?
-Devs can definitely change their views, and we as players have the right to complain about the state of the game, and the expectation that they may hear us, so we will keep having these threads. Have you heard about the "You think you do but you don't" answer from a WoW dev, to a question from someone who was asking for the implementation of classic versions of the game? Well, not long after that they finally changed their minds and now there are 2 classic versions of the game available, which have turned out to be a success. Coincidentally, one of the reasons many players asked for a classic version, is that retail had become too easy in some aspects.
Lastly, I want to remind everyone that we (at least most of us) are asking for something optional. Some people make it sound as if we wanted to take your fun away, when that's not the case.Edited by Eridanus on 9 October 2021 02:086 -
Roztlin45✭✭✭✭✭What is wrong with wearing all white gear? No proc sets and or no armor with only a white weapon. (Costume on please if nude..lol) .
If you want a harder overland. Plenty of ways to gimp yourself.4 -
jle30303✭✭✭✭✭
✭What is wrong with wearing all white gear? No proc sets and or no armor with only a white weapon. (Costume on please if nude..lol) .
If you want a harder overland. Plenty of ways to gimp yourself.
Because that is NOT what people wanting greater difficulty actually want. People do not, in fact, like having their bells and whistles removed, whether by dev action (nerfing a thing in-game) or by voluntary action (choosing to wear inferior gear). What these players are asking for is content that is more difficult for them WITH ALL THEIR BELLS AND WHISTLES.
And my answer is: go solo some dungeons then. There is already "harder" content in the game, there is no point in making the deliberately easy content harder (even optionally) and sharding the playerbase even further than it already is.
Overland *is* a thing that one should be able to blow through, with ease, especially once one has actually levelled up: it is in fact extremely frustrating that the game gets tougher with the player. You want things with mechanics? Dungeons exist, and solo arenas exist. Go there.4 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭What is wrong with wearing all white gear? No proc sets and or no armor with only a white weapon. (Costume on please if nude..lol) .
If you want a harder overland. Plenty of ways to gimp yourself.
Because that is NOT what people wanting greater difficulty actually want. People do not, in fact, like having their bells and whistles removed, whether by dev action (nerfing a thing in-game) or by voluntary action (choosing to wear inferior gear). What these players are asking for is content that is more difficult for them WITH ALL THEIR BELLS AND WHISTLES.
And my answer is: go solo some dungeons then. There is already "harder" content in the game, there is no point in making the deliberately easy content harder (even optionally) and sharding the playerbase even further than it already is.
Overland *is* a thing that one should be able to blow through, with ease, especially once one has actually levelled up: it is in fact extremely frustrating that the game gets tougher with the player. You want things with mechanics? Dungeons exist, and solo arenas exist. Go there.
And the funny thing is the developers will not waste time creating a vet overland where there are additional mechanics. There are a hundred reasons why doing so is completely impractical.
So the only way to increase difficulty is to nerf players output and resistances. And yet the method to do so is already in the game [snip]
The easiest way to make overland harder is to nerf yourself. If you can’t put in the effort to do that then why should the developers put in effort for a system they know most players won’t use
[edited for baiting]Edited by ZOS_Icy on 9 October 2021 12:493 -
CP5✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »What is wrong with wearing all white gear? No proc sets and or no armor with only a white weapon. (Costume on please if nude..lol) .
If you want a harder overland. Plenty of ways to gimp yourself.
Because that is NOT what people wanting greater difficulty actually want. People do not, in fact, like having their bells and whistles removed, whether by dev action (nerfing a thing in-game) or by voluntary action (choosing to wear inferior gear). What these players are asking for is content that is more difficult for them WITH ALL THEIR BELLS AND WHISTLES.
And my answer is: go solo some dungeons then. There is already "harder" content in the game, there is no point in making the deliberately easy content harder (even optionally) and sharding the playerbase even further than it already is.
Overland *is* a thing that one should be able to blow through, with ease, especially once one has actually levelled up: it is in fact extremely frustrating that the game gets tougher with the player. You want things with mechanics? Dungeons exist, and solo arenas exist. Go there.
And the funny thing is the developers will not waste time creating a vet overland where there are additional mechanics. There are a hundred reasons why doing so is completely impractical.
So the only way to increase difficulty is to nerf players output and resistances. And yet the method to do so is already in the game [snip]
The easiest way to make overland harder is to nerf yourself. If you can’t put in the effort to do that then why should the developers put in effort for a system they know most players won’t use
No, because it doesn't target the core issue. Most overland mobs have abilities that only serve to waste their own time. If I see an archer doing volley or taking aim I think, great, they're out of the fight for the next 8-10 seconds. So I kill all their friends, rp walk over to them, and bash them in the face. If they only do basic attacks then they're an actual threat. Many enemies are plagued by this, so you don't need to overhaul the AI, just give the AI useful abilities and buff the ones that could be useful and that alone would go a long way to making the content more engaging.
It doesn't matter if I go out with no gear and only punch mobs to death, the fact that the enemy doesn't change from me doing this, and they remain so basic and underwhelming to fight, that still makes the fight dull and forgettable no matter how long I drag the fight out for.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on 9 October 2021 12:496
This discussion has been closed.