800k people don't seem to mind difficult overworld

Vhozek

SilverBride wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I still don't understand why a player who has developed their character for veteran end game content wants to spend their game time in overland. That's like earning a PhD in astrophysics then taking a job at a fast food restaurant.

I don't develop my character. If there was a way to record stats about my life, I would show you just how many characters I have deleted as soon as I reach max level with them. I delete SO many characters and restart them over. Same build, different approach to combat. I have deleted and restarted an unimaginable amount of times.

If you are only playing new characters up to max level (level 50 or CP3600?) and never experiencing any other content then of course it will become less exciting over time. Especially if you are using the same build, which by now you would be very adapt at.

You don't get it. I have no problem with replaying the same exact build for the 10th million time. I played Trundle in LoL for 10 years and I still do. It's the only character I play. It's about the PvE.

I do get it. You enjoy replaying overland only on new characters. Nothing wrong with that. But that is not how most play, and is not a reason to make such a drastic change to the game that most players do not want.

No, I don't enjoy replaying only on new characters. I just don't mind it because I do it all the time elsewhere. I replay only on new characters because, again, I try a different approach to PvE combat. I have tried even playing the game realistically where every piece of gear I find, EVERYTHING, gets trashed and I can only craft my own BUT I can't gather certain resources until I've become physically strong enough, so I wait like 10 levels when I have enough stamina by fighting hand to hand as if to "build muscle" before I can even mine a single iron ore for a dagger. I even make it so that it's supposed to be hard work so a dagger should suffice for like 5 more levels when I "get better" at swinging a weapon. I do so many things like these to try and struggle and I just cannot. I even stand still and only attack AFTER I'm hit by a mob. I don't bash them, I don't walk out of their red circles, I even change the color to black so I can't see the circles. I bring no potions and I can't learn any skills until I have been to church many times and prayed to Akatosh for magic to use skills. I can't use Stamina skills until I feel my character has learned enough to move faster in combat.
Oh, I also apply artificial fear to my character. It can't fight certain mobs because they're too scary like Daedra although I already know I can kill them no problem even with all these restrictions as I've learned from the countless times I've tried these things in many different ways.

There are many other things I do that I can't remember because I haven't played in a while. I even restrict myself on certain other parts of the game that have nothing to do with combat such as: I can't just fall from cliffs cause I will literally break my legs, or I can't just cross any bodies of water cause I might get bit by an animal or catch a cold. I can't walk too close to the edge of something cause I might break my ankle. All this to ADD difficulty in some way shape or form.

Important: I'm not saying the game should be this way. I'm saying I do ALL this and PvE is still not difficult. Not one bit. [snip]
I do not understand who gets to make up the definition for the word bait when I'm being sincere.

[edited for baiting]

trackdemon5512

Vhozek wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I still don't understand why a player who has developed their character for veteran end game content wants to spend their game time in overland. That's like earning a PhD in astrophysics then taking a job at a fast food restaurant.

I don't develop my character. If there was a way to record stats about my life, I would show you just how many characters I have deleted as soon as I reach max level with them. I delete SO many characters and restart them over. Same build, different approach to combat. I have deleted and restarted an unimaginable amount of times. I have said it before in OLD af threads. People have given me flack for even mentioning it.
I have over 2000 hours of just deleting characters and restarting. It is my second most played game ever. First is LoL cause I started a really long time ago.
I basically play this game like a merchant. I just hunt for rare items and explore. Trash PvE just makes the whole game a slot machine.

You’re the very definition of an outlier. Your playstyle is one that the vast vast vast majority of players, both casual and hardcore, neither subscribe to nor engage in.

The developers themselves have gone on record in Twitch streams that they don’t even make so many characters and that the notion of having 18 active toons is already so absurd that creating more spots is in addition to being hard on the database not practically worth it.

You’re essentially a PTS type player who wants the live game to match. And while time spent in a game is commendable it has clearly left you at a point where the experience you desire isn’t only impractical but far far from what other players will ever do.

It’s not a leap to say that the developers know this and that catering to such and extremely niche (and in your case arguably fickle about particulars) crowd isn’t just impractical but definitely not worth it. Because while there may be a few like it can in no way justify the cost.

Vhozek

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I still don't understand why a player who has developed their character for veteran end game content wants to spend their game time in overland. That's like earning a PhD in astrophysics then taking a job at a fast food restaurant.

I don't develop my character. If there was a way to record stats about my life, I would show you just how many characters I have deleted as soon as I reach max level with them. I delete SO many characters and restart them over. Same build, different approach to combat. I have deleted and restarted an unimaginable amount of times. I have said it before in OLD af threads. People have given me flack for even mentioning it.
I have over 2000 hours of just deleting characters and restarting. It is my second most played game ever. First is LoL cause I started a really long time ago.
I basically play this game like a merchant. I just hunt for rare items and explore. Trash PvE just makes the whole game a slot machine.

You’re the very definition of an outlier. Your playstyle is one that the vast vast vast majority of players, both casual and hardcore, neither subscribe to nor engage in.

The developers themselves have gone on record in Twitch streams that they don’t even make so many characters and that the notion of having 18 active toons is already so absurd that creating more spots is in addition to being hard on the database not practically worth it.

You’re essentially a PTS type player who wants the live game to match. And while time spent in a game is commendable it has clearly left you at a point where the experience you desire isn’t only impractical but far far from what other players will ever do.

It’s not a leap to say that the developers know this and that catering to such and extremely niche (and in your case arguably fickle about particulars) crowd isn’t just impractical but definitely not worth it. Because while there may be a few like it can in no way justify the cost.

Fighting mobs makes me an outlier? It's niche? What?
WHAT?
[snip]
[edited for baiting & discussing moderator action]
I feel baited by being told fighting mobs is niche. That's why I had to make this expressive reply.
The topic IS about combat vs mobs.
I will DIE and go to hell on this hill.

SilverBride

Vhozek wrote: »

There are many other things I do that I can't remember because I haven't played in a while.

If it's been awhile since you've played things may be different than you remember, especially with the new CP system. It may be worth giving it another try and seeing how it goes now.

Vhozek

SilverBride wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

There are many other things I do that I can't remember because I haven't played in a while.

If it's been awhile since you've played things may be different than you remember, especially with the new CP system. It may be worth giving it another try and seeing how it goes now.

It is not different.

ZOS_Icy

Hi there,

Recently we've had to remove a few posts for baiting and flaming, content that is against the Community Rules.

• Flaming: It’s okay to disagree and debate on the official ESO forums, but we do ask that you keep all disagreements civil, constructive, and on-topic. If a discussion gets heated and turns into a debate, remember that you should stick to debating the post and/or thread topic. It is never appropriate to resort to personal comments or jabs about those participating in the thread discussion.

• Trolling or Baiting: The act of trolling is defined as something that is created for the intent to provoke conflict, shock others, or to elicit a strong negative or emotional reaction. It’s okay and very normal to disagree with others, and even to debate, but provoking conflict, baiting, inciting, mocking, etc. is never acceptable in the official The Elder Scrolls Online community. If you do not have something constructive or meaningful to add to a discussion, we strongly recommend you refrain from posting in that thread, and find another discussion to participate in instead. It is also not constructive or helpful to publicly call out others and accuse them of trolling, or call them a troll—please refrain from doing so. If you genuinely believe someone is trolling, please report the post or thread to the ESO Team, and leave it at that.

For further posts be sure to stay constructive and respectful to avoid thread derailment.

Thank you for understanding.

Blood_again

CP5 wrote: »

When ESO first launched, every zone had 3 different instances. Bronze, for your base faction zones, silver for the next batch, and gold for the last. An AD character in Auridon would face low-level mobs, but an EP in Auridon would face mid-tier vet mobs.

Mmm, nope. EP got Auridon as the third zone. I played for DC as my main and had Auridon as Silver (the second one).
Looks like you didn't play this part of the game. So you can't remember, how empty those locations were.
There were almost nobody there. You had to find some guildmates to fight a WB, because zonechat was a desert.
I remember it well. Returning overland to that state would be the worst decision ever. I'm glad Rich Lambert said almost the same.

spartaxoxo

ke.sardenb14_ESO wrote: »

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.

So that is a bit of a disingenuous defense of the content. I guarantee to you a player with even a moderate amount of skill could complete all of the dungeons(dlc and base), before they could complete all of the factions, let alone the dlc zones. That is like telling someone a bathtub full of soup and a single apple are the equivalent amounts of food because you don't have teeth.

Dungeons are designed to be replayable, stories are not. You have to make an alt to do a story again. The dungeons to get everything out of them require multiple playthroughs even if you somehow get a trifecta going in blind. So dungeon playtime isn't as quantifiable as a story. My main hasn't done any of the base game quests for years, I did fungal Grotto like last week.

kargen27

"kargen27, they had separate overland zones that had the same mobs but at different levels. In dungeons we see that ZOS can not only tweak a mobs level but also what skills they have and what those skills do. That means, combined, they can have a different overland rule set with mobs that have skills swapped out with others, allowing something like this to exist."

This isn't so much a conversation of if they can but if they should. I've no doubt they could give all the NPCs in overland different behaviors and mechanics to create a tougher place to roam. I and others do not think it is worth the developers time as the new zone would be under utilized. If we are wrong and the zone does get used that isn't good either as it divides the population making the world appear less populated.

"In New World, I get all of these things. I'm getting my ass kicked left and right by mobs and makes exploring incredible EVEN after I already got the hang of everything to do with combat and even after I, for the first time in my life, spent HOURS gathering and crafting good gear."

It's going to get stupid easy for you soon. There is a pattern to the attacks and when faced with a mob you can make it so they are all in sync with their attacks meaning one dodge and they all miss. THe hardest part is getting used to not being able to roll through them when they have you backed into a small space. At level 15 an alligator thumped me good and proper before I could do much but say ouch. Level 21 that same gater I could just stand in front of and swat until he died. I'm using a life staff and an ice gauntlet so not an overpowering build at all. THe combat there is also much much slower than it is in ESO.
The good I could die fights are fun though and I am planning on enjoying them while I can. To that end I stay away from XP bonuses and stuff that would help me level quicker. Here in ESO I'm not going to get those fights in overland. As much as I would like them I know why it shouldn't happen. Good thing is the dungeons and trials are really accessible in ESO so when I feel like it I can get the good you might die fights running those.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

I still don't understand why a player who has developed their character for veteran end game content wants to spend their game time in overland. That's like earning a PhD in astrophysics then taking a job at a fast food restaurant.

Why do you think listening to a story is like work? It's more like not understanding why an astrophysicist would want to listen to pop music when they also like classical. Because they think it sounds nice, obviously.

They want to be able to enjoy the story and the story is enhanced when the gameplay matches the narrative.

trackdemon5512

Vhozek wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I still don't understand why a player who has developed their character for veteran end game content wants to spend their game time in overland. That's like earning a PhD in astrophysics then taking a job at a fast food restaurant.

I don't develop my character. If there was a way to record stats about my life, I would show you just how many characters I have deleted as soon as I reach max level with them. I delete SO many characters and restart them over. Same build, different approach to combat. I have deleted and restarted an unimaginable amount of times. I have said it before in OLD af threads. People have given me flack for even mentioning it.
I have over 2000 hours of just deleting characters and restarting. It is my second most played game ever. First is LoL cause I started a really long time ago.
I basically play this game like a merchant. I just hunt for rare items and explore. Trash PvE just makes the whole game a slot machine.

You’re the very definition of an outlier. Your playstyle is one that the vast vast vast majority of players, both casual and hardcore, neither subscribe to nor engage in.

The developers themselves have gone on record in Twitch streams that they don’t even make so many characters and that the notion of having 18 active toons is already so absurd that creating more spots is in addition to being hard on the database not practically worth it.

You’re essentially a PTS type player who wants the live game to match. And while time spent in a game is commendable it has clearly left you at a point where the experience you desire isn’t only impractical but far far from what other players will ever do.

It’s not a leap to say that the developers know this and that catering to such and extremely niche (and in your case arguably fickle about particulars) crowd isn’t just impractical but definitely not worth it. Because while there may be a few like it can in no way justify the cost.

Fighting mobs makes me an outlier? It's niche? What?
WHAT?
[snip]
[edited for baiting & discussing moderator action]
I feel baited by being told fighting mobs is niche. That's why I had to make this expressive reply.
The topic IS about combat vs mobs.
I will DIE and go to hell on this hill.

I’m sorry but I’m not referring to fighting mobs. I’m referring to your comment about how you’ve spent over 2000 hours as you said making/deleting characters. You said it yourself with hyperbole that it’s an “unimaginable” amount of times.

If that’s the case, it’s really well outside of the core player to which ZOS or any other game developer looks to address.

This is no way an attack on you. It’s a simple observation that your experiences, and those that you crave just can’t be applied to the general ESO body. Are you a member of the ESO population? Yes. But your playstyle would likely be outside of 3 standard deviations of the mean in any measurable quantity.

We all fight mobs. This game thrives on throwing them at you in overland so you either feel powerful being able to take them on solo or that weaker players feel good clearing the numbers as a group.

But insurmountable combat is the definition of a roadblock and players are faced with two options. Either they keep at it and clear or they ignore it and quit. And as Rich stated it’s human nature to look for the easiest, fastest way out. Players tend to quit.

You don’t add features that are more likely to drive your base away than it is to bring players in. That’s the truth for any business.

cptqrk

CP5 wrote: »

1. If it was a different instance there wouldn't be "kill stealing" nor would people not wanting extra mechanics see them.

Nice of you to totally ignore the very clearly stated point by ZOS they will not split the player base.

That means no instanced over world.

Yes it was instanced at launch. They changed that because it was not being used, and splitting up the player base.

It has been pointed out over and over again here, and in all the other "we want harder over world" threads, ZOS will not split the payer base.

So, no. Your toggle/slider will not work.

kargen27

CP5 wrote: »

kargen27, they had separate overland zones that had the same mobs but at different levels. In dungeons we see that ZOS can not only tweak a mobs level but also what skills they have and what those skills do. That means, combined, they can have a different overland rule set with mobs that have skills swapped out with others, allowing something like this to exist. Overland zones are just like dungeons and trials, only with a higher player cap.

Both for you and temerley, think of the population situation this way. You have 8 instances of Reapers, each one with 80 players (for keeping the math easy). If 10 players in each instance wanted a vet overland they would get pooled into one instance with 80 players, leaving the other 8 zones with 70 people each. If you're really particular, take 70 from one of those instances, spread them around the rest, and you end up with 8 zones with 80 people in them just like before, just with people who are interested in doing harder content together in that one zone not enforcing their version of the game onto others.

As for casual people not getting help on harder content, plenty of people also hate when a higher level player comes in and kills a boss from under them. It honestly shouldn't be expected for an experienced player to come in and 'carry' an encounter, plenty of people would still be in the regular instance, and you wouldn't be any less free to group up with them after such a change were implemented.

Keeping the math easy and the numbers easy to manipulate. What happens to the zone that already has low population instead of eight full instances? Your scenario for eight full instances requires a perfect scenario. That and I personally highly doubt 12.5% of the population is going to want to be in a vet zone at any one time past maybe the first two weeks. At this point in the games life span it simply isn't worth the resources needed and wouldn't be good for the game. If the vet zone did become popular how long do you think queue times for DPS doing the random daily would become?

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

I still don't understand why a player who has developed their character for veteran end game content wants to spend their game time in overland. That's like earning a PhD in astrophysics then taking a job at a fast food restaurant.

Overland is an entire world. There are quest there, there are places to explore there. But for some players the quest become disengaging without enemies who actually play their role, and exploration becomes dull when even the most dangerous enemies roll out the red carpet for you.

Blood_again wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

When ESO first launched, every zone had 3 different instances. Bronze, for your base faction zones, silver for the next batch, and gold for the last. An AD character in Auridon would face low-level mobs, but an EP in Auridon would face mid-tier vet mobs.

Mmm, nope. EP got Auridon as the third zone. I played for DC as my main and had Auridon as Silver (the second one).
Looks like you didn't play this part of the game. So you can't remember, how empty those locations were.
There were almost nobody there. You had to find some guildmates to fight a WB, because zonechat was a desert.
I remember it well. Returning overland to that state would be the worst decision ever. I'm glad Rich Lambert said almost the same.

The enemies you faced in Auridon as an EP player were different from the ones you faced as a DC player. They were different levels, meaning that the same zone had different rules applied to the same enemies. Those locations were empty because to access silver zones you had to do your main faction's whole quest line, and to get to gold you had to do that twice. No one is asking for that.

@kargen27, and that's where we differ, and I can appreciate that. As long as these threads keep continuing there will be a call for ZOS to at least think about it, and as far as zone density goes, they're already divided between shards. There wouldn't be much of a change if some of these instances were made a different difficulty and players were just shuffled around.

cptqrk wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

1. If it was a different instance there wouldn't be "kill stealing" nor would people not wanting extra mechanics see them.

Nice of you to totally ignore the very clearly stated point by ZOS they will not split the player base.

That means no instanced over world.

Yes it was instanced at launch. They changed that because it was not being used, and splitting up the player base.

It has been pointed out over and over again here, and in all the other "we want harder over world" threads, ZOS will not split the payer base.

So, no. Your toggle/slider will not work.

You're ignoring the fact I never mention, suggested, or encouraged a slider. A toggle to be put into a particular instance of a zone. Zones are already split like this. Not everyone whose logged in and in Wayrest are in the same version of Wayrest. Ever group with someone, head to where they are on the map, and they're invisible? That's because they're in a different instance of the same zone. This ins't some evil plan to divide the player base, and if a vet overland is so popular that it would divide the players so heavily, then clearly it would be something many players would want.

kargen27 wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

kargen27, they had separate overland zones that had the same mobs but at different levels. In dungeons we see that ZOS can not only tweak a mobs level but also what skills they have and what those skills do. That means, combined, they can have a different overland rule set with mobs that have skills swapped out with others, allowing something like this to exist. Overland zones are just like dungeons and trials, only with a higher player cap.

Both for you and temerley, think of the population situation this way. You have 8 instances of Reapers, each one with 80 players (for keeping the math easy). If 10 players in each instance wanted a vet overland they would get pooled into one instance with 80 players, leaving the other 8 zones with 70 people each. If you're really particular, take 70 from one of those instances, spread them around the rest, and you end up with 8 zones with 80 people in them just like before, just with people who are interested in doing harder content together in that one zone not enforcing their version of the game onto others.

As for casual people not getting help on harder content, plenty of people also hate when a higher level player comes in and kills a boss from under them. It honestly shouldn't be expected for an experienced player to come in and 'carry' an encounter, plenty of people would still be in the regular instance, and you wouldn't be any less free to group up with them after such a change were implemented.

Keeping the math easy and the numbers easy to manipulate. What happens to the zone that already has low population instead of eight full instances? Your scenario for eight full instances requires a perfect scenario. That and I personally highly doubt 12.5% of the population is going to want to be in a vet zone at any one time past maybe the first two weeks. At this point in the games life span it simply isn't worth the resources needed and wouldn't be good for the game. If the vet zone did become popular how long do you think queue times for DPS doing the random daily would become?

How are queue times for DPS in random dungeons relevant to this? Queue times for DPS are long since support roles don't want to deal with the dungeon finder since many players using it aren't ready for vet content and tanks and healers don't want to deal with 2h dungeons. And if the zones are already low pop then how heavy is the impact from this sort of a change?

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I still don't understand why a player who has developed their character for veteran end game content wants to spend their game time in overland. That's like earning a PhD in astrophysics then taking a job at a fast food restaurant.

Overland is an entire world. There are quest there, there are places to explore there. But for some players the quest become disengaging without enemies who actually play their role, and exploration becomes dull when even the most dangerous enemies roll out the red carpet for you.

Overland mobs aren't the most dangerous enemies. They are basic mobs that are part of the base game. We, the heroes, should be a lot stronger than them.

CP5 wrote: »

Those locations were empty because to access silver zones you had to do your main faction's whole quest line, and to get to gold you had to do that twice.

You didn't have to do anything twice. First you did your own faction's zones. When those were complete you were given Cadwell's Silver that sent you to one of the other faction's zones, only they were veteran level. Once those were complete you were given Cadwell's Gold that sent you to the last faction's zones, which were also veteran level and even more difficult.

A lot of players completed their own faction's zones but very few played Silver and Gold because of the difficulty.

kargen27

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I still don't understand why a player who has developed their character for veteran end game content wants to spend their game time in overland. That's like earning a PhD in astrophysics then taking a job at a fast food restaurant.

Overland is an entire world. There are quest there, there are places to explore there. But for some players the quest become disengaging without enemies who actually play their role, and exploration becomes dull when even the most dangerous enemies roll out the red carpet for you.

Blood_again wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

When ESO first launched, every zone had 3 different instances. Bronze, for your base faction zones, silver for the next batch, and gold for the last. An AD character in Auridon would face low-level mobs, but an EP in Auridon would face mid-tier vet mobs.

Mmm, nope. EP got Auridon as the third zone. I played for DC as my main and had Auridon as Silver (the second one).
Looks like you didn't play this part of the game. So you can't remember, how empty those locations were.
There were almost nobody there. You had to find some guildmates to fight a WB, because zonechat was a desert.
I remember it well. Returning overland to that state would be the worst decision ever. I'm glad Rich Lambert said almost the same.

The enemies you faced in Auridon as an EP player were different from the ones you faced as a DC player. They were different levels, meaning that the same zone had different rules applied to the same enemies. Those locations were empty because to access silver zones you had to do your main faction's whole quest line, and to get to gold you had to do that twice. No one is asking for that.

@kargen27, and that's where we differ, and I can appreciate that. As long as these threads keep continuing there will be a call for ZOS to at least think about it, and as far as zone density goes, they're already divided between shards. There wouldn't be much of a change if some of these instances were made a different difficulty and players were just shuffled around.

cptqrk wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

1. If it was a different instance there wouldn't be "kill stealing" nor would people not wanting extra mechanics see them.

Nice of you to totally ignore the very clearly stated point by ZOS they will not split the player base.

That means no instanced over world.

Yes it was instanced at launch. They changed that because it was not being used, and splitting up the player base.

It has been pointed out over and over again here, and in all the other "we want harder over world" threads, ZOS will not split the payer base.

So, no. Your toggle/slider will not work.

You're ignoring the fact I never mention, suggested, or encouraged a slider. A toggle to be put into a particular instance of a zone. Zones are already split like this. Not everyone whose logged in and in Wayrest are in the same version of Wayrest. Ever group with someone, head to where they are on the map, and they're invisible? That's because they're in a different instance of the same zone. This ins't some evil plan to divide the player base, and if a vet overland is so popular that it would divide the players so heavily, then clearly it would be something many players would want.

kargen27 wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

kargen27, they had separate overland zones that had the same mobs but at different levels. In dungeons we see that ZOS can not only tweak a mobs level but also what skills they have and what those skills do. That means, combined, they can have a different overland rule set with mobs that have skills swapped out with others, allowing something like this to exist. Overland zones are just like dungeons and trials, only with a higher player cap.

Both for you and temerley, think of the population situation this way. You have 8 instances of Reapers, each one with 80 players (for keeping the math easy). If 10 players in each instance wanted a vet overland they would get pooled into one instance with 80 players, leaving the other 8 zones with 70 people each. If you're really particular, take 70 from one of those instances, spread them around the rest, and you end up with 8 zones with 80 people in them just like before, just with people who are interested in doing harder content together in that one zone not enforcing their version of the game onto others.

As for casual people not getting help on harder content, plenty of people also hate when a higher level player comes in and kills a boss from under them. It honestly shouldn't be expected for an experienced player to come in and 'carry' an encounter, plenty of people would still be in the regular instance, and you wouldn't be any less free to group up with them after such a change were implemented.

Keeping the math easy and the numbers easy to manipulate. What happens to the zone that already has low population instead of eight full instances? Your scenario for eight full instances requires a perfect scenario. That and I personally highly doubt 12.5% of the population is going to want to be in a vet zone at any one time past maybe the first two weeks. At this point in the games life span it simply isn't worth the resources needed and wouldn't be good for the game. If the vet zone did become popular how long do you think queue times for DPS doing the random daily would become?

How are queue times for DPS in random dungeons relevant to this? Queue times for DPS are long since support roles don't want to deal with the dungeon finder since many players using it aren't ready for vet content and tanks and healers don't want to deal with 2h dungeons. And if the zones are already low pop then how heavy is the impact from this sort of a change?

Queue times are relevant because fewer players to potentially draw from of course means less people in the queue. Same as trying to get help with world bosses and all that fun stuff. If we take it all the way out eventually it means splitting population for dragons and Harrowstorms.

CP5

kargen27 wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I still don't understand why a player who has developed their character for veteran end game content wants to spend their game time in overland. That's like earning a PhD in astrophysics then taking a job at a fast food restaurant.

Overland is an entire world. There are quest there, there are places to explore there. But for some players the quest become disengaging without enemies who actually play their role, and exploration becomes dull when even the most dangerous enemies roll out the red carpet for you.

Blood_again wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

When ESO first launched, every zone had 3 different instances. Bronze, for your base faction zones, silver for the next batch, and gold for the last. An AD character in Auridon would face low-level mobs, but an EP in Auridon would face mid-tier vet mobs.

Mmm, nope. EP got Auridon as the third zone. I played for DC as my main and had Auridon as Silver (the second one).
Looks like you didn't play this part of the game. So you can't remember, how empty those locations were.
There were almost nobody there. You had to find some guildmates to fight a WB, because zonechat was a desert.
I remember it well. Returning overland to that state would be the worst decision ever. I'm glad Rich Lambert said almost the same.

The enemies you faced in Auridon as an EP player were different from the ones you faced as a DC player. They were different levels, meaning that the same zone had different rules applied to the same enemies. Those locations were empty because to access silver zones you had to do your main faction's whole quest line, and to get to gold you had to do that twice. No one is asking for that.

@kargen27, and that's where we differ, and I can appreciate that. As long as these threads keep continuing there will be a call for ZOS to at least think about it, and as far as zone density goes, they're already divided between shards. There wouldn't be much of a change if some of these instances were made a different difficulty and players were just shuffled around.

cptqrk wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

1. If it was a different instance there wouldn't be "kill stealing" nor would people not wanting extra mechanics see them.

Nice of you to totally ignore the very clearly stated point by ZOS they will not split the player base.

That means no instanced over world.

Yes it was instanced at launch. They changed that because it was not being used, and splitting up the player base.

It has been pointed out over and over again here, and in all the other "we want harder over world" threads, ZOS will not split the payer base.

So, no. Your toggle/slider will not work.

You're ignoring the fact I never mention, suggested, or encouraged a slider. A toggle to be put into a particular instance of a zone. Zones are already split like this. Not everyone whose logged in and in Wayrest are in the same version of Wayrest. Ever group with someone, head to where they are on the map, and they're invisible? That's because they're in a different instance of the same zone. This ins't some evil plan to divide the player base, and if a vet overland is so popular that it would divide the players so heavily, then clearly it would be something many players would want.

kargen27 wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

kargen27, they had separate overland zones that had the same mobs but at different levels. In dungeons we see that ZOS can not only tweak a mobs level but also what skills they have and what those skills do. That means, combined, they can have a different overland rule set with mobs that have skills swapped out with others, allowing something like this to exist. Overland zones are just like dungeons and trials, only with a higher player cap.

Both for you and temerley, think of the population situation this way. You have 8 instances of Reapers, each one with 80 players (for keeping the math easy). If 10 players in each instance wanted a vet overland they would get pooled into one instance with 80 players, leaving the other 8 zones with 70 people each. If you're really particular, take 70 from one of those instances, spread them around the rest, and you end up with 8 zones with 80 people in them just like before, just with people who are interested in doing harder content together in that one zone not enforcing their version of the game onto others.

As for casual people not getting help on harder content, plenty of people also hate when a higher level player comes in and kills a boss from under them. It honestly shouldn't be expected for an experienced player to come in and 'carry' an encounter, plenty of people would still be in the regular instance, and you wouldn't be any less free to group up with them after such a change were implemented.

Keeping the math easy and the numbers easy to manipulate. What happens to the zone that already has low population instead of eight full instances? Your scenario for eight full instances requires a perfect scenario. That and I personally highly doubt 12.5% of the population is going to want to be in a vet zone at any one time past maybe the first two weeks. At this point in the games life span it simply isn't worth the resources needed and wouldn't be good for the game. If the vet zone did become popular how long do you think queue times for DPS doing the random daily would become?

How are queue times for DPS in random dungeons relevant to this? Queue times for DPS are long since support roles don't want to deal with the dungeon finder since many players using it aren't ready for vet content and tanks and healers don't want to deal with 2h dungeons. And if the zones are already low pop then how heavy is the impact from this sort of a change?

Queue times are relevant because fewer players to potentially draw from of course means less people in the queue. Same as trying to get help with world bosses and all that fun stuff. If we take it all the way out eventually it means splitting population for dragons and Harrowstorms.

People can be in queue anywhere, and if people are doing other content because they enjoy it, what harm is there? Fix the actual issue of supports not wanting to queue to fix that. As for world bosses, how many 'elite' players do you think are just sitting around waiting to be called to help with things? If they would rather participate in content they enjoy, why shouldn't they be allowed to because other players may need them rather than working together themselves?

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

People can be in queue anywhere, and if people are doing other content because they enjoy it, what harm is there? Fix the actual issue of supports not wanting to queue to fix that. As for world bosses, how many 'elite' players do you think are just sitting around waiting to be called to help with things? If they would rather participate in content they enjoy, why shouldn't they be allowed to because other players may need them rather than working together themselves?

There are plenty of high CP players who are willing to help with World Bosses when someone calls out in zone. I have never once asked for help that others didn't come, so I do the same.

We were already given an answer to an optional veteran overland by Rich Lambert in the Twitch stream I linked previously in this thread, along with an explanation why. The link is buried somewhere in this thread, so If anyone would like to see it I will be glad to link it again.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

People can be in queue anywhere, and if people are doing other content because they enjoy it, what harm is there? Fix the actual issue of supports not wanting to queue to fix that. As for world bosses, how many 'elite' players do you think are just sitting around waiting to be called to help with things? If they would rather participate in content they enjoy, why shouldn't they be allowed to because other players may need them rather than working together themselves?

There are plenty of high CP players who are willing to help with World Bosses when someone calls out in zone. I have never once asked for help that others didn't come, so I do the same.

We were already given an answer to an optional veteran overland by Rich Lambert in the Twitch stream I linked previously in this thread, along with an explanation why. The link is buried somewhere in this thread, so If anyone would like to see it I will be glad to link it again.

I was there, and his comment clearly hinted that his thought was to the way things were before, not what people are asking for. And again, if this vet overland is popular enough to draw too many experienced players away from helping others then clearly there is a large enough group of people who would want it, and if that's the case then why should the reason not to have it be because those players should instead be sitting in town waiting to be asked for?

AlexanderDeLarge

Elder Scrolls Online’s creative director says New World’s success will ‘shake things up’ and ‘get the creative juices flowing’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/10/04/eso-deadlands-new-world/

New World succeeding is the best thing that could possibly happen to The Elder Scrolls Online and I'm very glad this quote was made because it's ridiculous to see people in this thread downplaying competition after downplaying the desire for overland difficulty for years.

Also just read through the past couple pages and it's hilarious seeing the same names disagreeing with the concept of a veteran overland across multiple threads months and months apart. Some of you guys seem awfully invested in something that wouldn't affect you in the slightest if it were to be implemented.

Amottica wrote: »

In this case, the devs have not said it would not happen. They (Rich) has said it already happened players pretty much avoided the more challenging vet zones. This is the reason he gave for the game-changing before and seemed to indicate and he said the data, that the overwhelming number of players do not want to enjoy the story without struggle or difficulty. He specifically said the data does not lie.

As I've pointed out in this thread many, many times, that anecdote of his is ridiculous because
1.) The adventure zones were group-mandatory back when phasing and grouping itself were blatantly broken to the point where most players quit the game necessitating the One Tamriel "relaunch" in the first place.
2.) Hardly anyone was hitting Veteran Rank 16 because the progression system was tedious.
3.) Referring to Cadwell Silver/Gold exclusively, the base game's content sucked, the mechanics were broken and no one was really rushing out the door to play the Admeri Dominion quests... but more difficult

That content sucks. Frankly I'd rather play nothing than go through a veteran overland version of AD quests. Fortunately for everyone that plays the game, this is no longer the case. We have five chapters, the gold edition's DLCs including Orsinium and stuff like Clockwork City, Murkmire, Elsweyr and soon the Deadlands. This is all great content that I'd definitely play through in a veteran mode.

Using a seven year old anecdote about a game that is damn near unrecognizable is ridiculous.

SilverBride

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Using a seven year old anecdote about a game that is damn near unrecognizable is ridiculous.

Rich referred to how the game was early on to explain why it was changed with One Tamriel, and how it is now more successful than it's ever been.

SkaraMinoc

Competition spurs innovation. That said, I did refund New Game after only 1 hour. Extremely unpolished game with major quality of life issues. Will take years for New Game to catch up to ESO.

AlexanderDeLarge

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Using a seven year old anecdote about a game that is damn near unrecognizable is ridiculous.

Rich referred to how the game was early on to explain why it was changed with One Tamriel, and how it is now more successful than its ever been.

Changed with One Tamriel (from a marketing perspective, a relaunch) and now revisionists are using the base game's systemic failure to justify the removal of content that has been a consistent request over the last five or so years since One Tamriel came out from people who likely weren't around pre-Morrowind. How does this contradict anything I've ever said in this thread?

It's an outdated anecdote and given how persistent the community has been asking for a veteran overland, it deserves more consideration than shrugging it off saying "well we did it before and if we ignore all context on why it failed, it failed and that's that".

CP5 wrote: »

And again, if this vet overland is popular enough to draw too many experienced players away from helping others then clearly there is a large enough group of people who would want it, and if that's the case then why should the reason not to have it be because those players should instead be sitting in town waiting to be asked for?

100% agree these people can't have it both ways. Either we're a vocal minority and no one actually wants veteran overland or it's implementation is so dangerous it would split the community and leave the normal overland empty because everyone would migrate over.

It can't be both.

kargen27

CP5 wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I still don't understand why a player who has developed their character for veteran end game content wants to spend their game time in overland. That's like earning a PhD in astrophysics then taking a job at a fast food restaurant.

Overland is an entire world. There are quest there, there are places to explore there. But for some players the quest become disengaging without enemies who actually play their role, and exploration becomes dull when even the most dangerous enemies roll out the red carpet for you.

Blood_again wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

When ESO first launched, every zone had 3 different instances. Bronze, for your base faction zones, silver for the next batch, and gold for the last. An AD character in Auridon would face low-level mobs, but an EP in Auridon would face mid-tier vet mobs.

Mmm, nope. EP got Auridon as the third zone. I played for DC as my main and had Auridon as Silver (the second one).
Looks like you didn't play this part of the game. So you can't remember, how empty those locations were.
There were almost nobody there. You had to find some guildmates to fight a WB, because zonechat was a desert.
I remember it well. Returning overland to that state would be the worst decision ever. I'm glad Rich Lambert said almost the same.

The enemies you faced in Auridon as an EP player were different from the ones you faced as a DC player. They were different levels, meaning that the same zone had different rules applied to the same enemies. Those locations were empty because to access silver zones you had to do your main faction's whole quest line, and to get to gold you had to do that twice. No one is asking for that.

@kargen27, and that's where we differ, and I can appreciate that. As long as these threads keep continuing there will be a call for ZOS to at least think about it, and as far as zone density goes, they're already divided between shards. There wouldn't be much of a change if some of these instances were made a different difficulty and players were just shuffled around.

cptqrk wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

1. If it was a different instance there wouldn't be "kill stealing" nor would people not wanting extra mechanics see them.

Nice of you to totally ignore the very clearly stated point by ZOS they will not split the player base.

That means no instanced over world.

Yes it was instanced at launch. They changed that because it was not being used, and splitting up the player base.

It has been pointed out over and over again here, and in all the other "we want harder over world" threads, ZOS will not split the payer base.

So, no. Your toggle/slider will not work.

You're ignoring the fact I never mention, suggested, or encouraged a slider. A toggle to be put into a particular instance of a zone. Zones are already split like this. Not everyone whose logged in and in Wayrest are in the same version of Wayrest. Ever group with someone, head to where they are on the map, and they're invisible? That's because they're in a different instance of the same zone. This ins't some evil plan to divide the player base, and if a vet overland is so popular that it would divide the players so heavily, then clearly it would be something many players would want.

kargen27 wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

kargen27, they had separate overland zones that had the same mobs but at different levels. In dungeons we see that ZOS can not only tweak a mobs level but also what skills they have and what those skills do. That means, combined, they can have a different overland rule set with mobs that have skills swapped out with others, allowing something like this to exist. Overland zones are just like dungeons and trials, only with a higher player cap.

Both for you and temerley, think of the population situation this way. You have 8 instances of Reapers, each one with 80 players (for keeping the math easy). If 10 players in each instance wanted a vet overland they would get pooled into one instance with 80 players, leaving the other 8 zones with 70 people each. If you're really particular, take 70 from one of those instances, spread them around the rest, and you end up with 8 zones with 80 people in them just like before, just with people who are interested in doing harder content together in that one zone not enforcing their version of the game onto others.

As for casual people not getting help on harder content, plenty of people also hate when a higher level player comes in and kills a boss from under them. It honestly shouldn't be expected for an experienced player to come in and 'carry' an encounter, plenty of people would still be in the regular instance, and you wouldn't be any less free to group up with them after such a change were implemented.

Keeping the math easy and the numbers easy to manipulate. What happens to the zone that already has low population instead of eight full instances? Your scenario for eight full instances requires a perfect scenario. That and I personally highly doubt 12.5% of the population is going to want to be in a vet zone at any one time past maybe the first two weeks. At this point in the games life span it simply isn't worth the resources needed and wouldn't be good for the game. If the vet zone did become popular how long do you think queue times for DPS doing the random daily would become?

How are queue times for DPS in random dungeons relevant to this? Queue times for DPS are long since support roles don't want to deal with the dungeon finder since many players using it aren't ready for vet content and tanks and healers don't want to deal with 2h dungeons. And if the zones are already low pop then how heavy is the impact from this sort of a change?

Queue times are relevant because fewer players to potentially draw from of course means less people in the queue. Same as trying to get help with world bosses and all that fun stuff. If we take it all the way out eventually it means splitting population for dragons and Harrowstorms.

People can be in queue anywhere, and if people are doing other content because they enjoy it, what harm is there? Fix the actual issue of supports not wanting to queue to fix that. As for world bosses, how many 'elite' players do you think are just sitting around waiting to be called to help with things? If they would rather participate in content they enjoy, why shouldn't they be allowed to because other players may need them rather than working together themselves?

Probably none are sitting around waiting. Then again elite players are probably not going to find a vet instanced overland any more interesting than what we have now. It isn't like they are going to scale it up to say the difference between normal Cloudrest and vet Cloudrest. That aside plenty of high level players do show up when other players ask for help in zones.

And as to the why shouldn't they we are simply going in circles here. ZoS has determined the number of players that would utilize the new zones isn't a good enough payout in return for investment in time and resources. My opinion is splitting the population wouldn't be good for the game. I have no problem with players participating in content they enjoy. Content implying it exists in game now.

kargen27

"Also just read through the past couple pages and it's hilarious seeing the same names disagreeing with the concept of a veteran overland across multiple threads months and months apart. Some of you guys seem awfully invested in something that wouldn't affect you in the slightest if it were to be implemented."

You also see the same names keep bringing this topic up knowing it isn't going to happen. Many of us disagreeing here are not against the concept. We disagree with what so far has been suggested as a way to do it. Some of us do feel it will have an affect on us because we feel it will have a negative affect on the long term health of the game. I want a more difficult overland. I also know why it isn't feasible to give us one at this point in the games development.

"100% agree these people can't have it both ways. Either we're a vocal minority and no one actually wants veteran overland or it's implementation is so dangerous it would split the community and leave the normal overland empty because everyone would migrate over.

It can't be both."

You are correct. It can't be both. I'm not arguing it will be both and I doubt most are. I am saying it will be one or the other and no matter which one it is the results will be bad. Either the content will be ignored meaning a waste of time and resources that could have been put to better use or players will go to the new zones dividing the population. That division would cause problems that could cause new players to leave before giving the game a chance among other things. It isn't both. It is that either is bad. There is no good solution.

Girl_Number8

Iccotak wrote: »

BlueRaven wrote: »

We will soon have the armory system. Make an overland questing build without cp and poor gear. There you go, an optional harder overland.

Mobs will hit harder and appear to have more hp.

Doesn’t fix the problem- many of us have tried this solution and as we’ve pointed out; they still use basic bare minimum mechanics which they overly telegraph.

Even if you have green gear , with a mix match of random stuff, and no CP - if you know the basic gameplay it is a cakewalk.

Self Nerfing is not, nor will it ever be an effective solution.

“Self Nerfing is not, nor will it ever be an effective solution”

[snip]

Start an alt account no help from you main or guilds.

Be a penniless vamp stage 4 with no passives or skills. Wear a costume and equip no gear. Be sure to not use any food or pots while playing. Don’t slot any healing skills or weapons skills.

Just use your fists and single target class abilities.... delete your character before level 27, rinse repeat. No Necros or Wardens.

I mean you’re not doing any challenging content that is ESO’ hardmode. If that was the case, there wouldn’t be the same few people harping on the dead horsey in identical threads.

Or just go play a game that is much harder with PvP in overland and use ESO to relax.

Changing overland has never been the number 1 request. The real number 1 request has been fixing the games performance....

[edited for baiting]

Amottica

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Elder Scrolls Online’s creative director says New World’s success will ‘shake things up’ and ‘get the creative juices flowing’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/10/04/eso-deadlands-new-world/

New World succeeding is the best thing that could possibly happen to The Elder Scrolls Online and I'm very glad this quote was made because it's ridiculous to see people in this thread downplaying competition after downplaying the desire for overland difficulty for years.

Also just read through the past couple pages and it's hilarious seeing the same names disagreeing with the concept of a veteran overland across multiple threads months and months apart. Some of you guys seem awfully invested in something that wouldn't affect you in the slightest if it were to be implemented.

Amottica wrote: »

In this case, the devs have not said it would not happen. They (Rich) has said it already happened players pretty much avoided the more challenging vet zones. This is the reason he gave for the game-changing before and seemed to indicate and he said the data, that the overwhelming number of players do not want to enjoy the story without struggle or difficulty. He specifically said the data does not lie.

As I've pointed out in this thread many, many times, that anecdote of his is ridiculous because
1.) The adventure zones were group-mandatory back when phasing and grouping itself were blatantly broken to the point where most players quit the game necessitating the One Tamriel "relaunch" in the first place.
2.) Hardly anyone was hitting Veteran Rank 16 because the progression system was tedious.
3.) Referring to Cadwell Silver/Gold exclusively, the base game's content sucked, the mechanics were broken and no one was really rushing out the door to play the Admeri Dominion quests... but more difficult

That content sucks. Frankly I'd rather play nothing than go through a veteran overland version of AD quests. Fortunately for everyone that plays the game, this is no longer the case. We have five chapters, the gold edition's DLCs including Orsinium and stuff like Clockwork City, Murkmire, Elsweyr and soon the Deadlands. This is all great content that I'd definitely play through in a veteran mode.

Using a seven year old anecdote about a game that is damn near unrecognizable is ridiculous.

@AlexanderDeLarge

1. The vet zones he spoke of did not require grouping. They were solo quests through the other two alliances that were designed very much like the quests in the character's home alliance. They were veteran difficulty. He is not talking about Craglorn.
2. These zones were for all vet ranks and vet 16 rank was irrelevant for most of the time these vet zone were available. V16 cap was not added to the game until ~18 months after the game was released.
3. I have not seen any mention of "broken mechanics" other than at launch (which was fixed early on). You are correct that people were not rushing out the door to do these additional quests and Rich explains this very well in that video.

As such his comments are far from ridiculous and very much appropriate. Someone linked the video in this thread and gave the time stamp for the discussion. I suggest scrolling back and watching his comments.

Adding to my comments. While Rich does suggest NW is successful, it is really hard to actually say it is at this time. One can only say it has sold a lot of copies with its launch. Consider how simplistic the design is from character creation to combat I would not even suggest it is good enough to be on the same level as a top-level game. It is many times the grind in every area compared to ESO. Yes, I have played it.

spartaxoxo

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

l
100% agree these people can't have it both ways. Either we're a vocal minority and no one actually wants veteran overland or it's implementation is so dangerous it would split the community and leave the normal overland empty because everyone would migrate over.

It can't be both.

If 1/3rd of 1/4 the playerbase asks for vet Overland, that's high enough of the playerbase to cause problems with normal Overland if they were removed. But not high enough to justify the cost to making it.

It can absolutely be both because the numbers don't have to shift to extremes.

Also the developers know better than you which content is used by most people and which changes greatly improved their player retention. Calling the official explanation for a major part of the game's success revisionist history is just rejection of established fact without evidence because it doesn't suit your opinion. The same goes to the claim that there would be no downsides to the casual crowd, as if any large scale sweeping change wouldn't have both upsides and downsides.

It's no wonder the opposing opinions haven't changed. Not even the directors themselves confirming the truth of an opposing fact is enough to get the ideas modified properly to accommodate facts. If y'all keep offering the same idea with the same obvious downsides, you'll keep hearing the same pushback. 🤷‍♀️

TequilaFire

I hate to burst anyone's bubble about NW but the problems in that game are starting to pop up in droves which is to be expected in a new game.

On the slider/toggle which would require more server resources to create more instances my 2 cents is we can't even get them to add server capacity to fix performance so why would they add capacity for different difficulty instances?
If they do anything I don't think that is the way they will go.

Let's see how adding things like roaming overland world bosses shake things up in the next update.

spartaxoxo

TequilaFire wrote: »

Let's see how adding things like roaming overland world bosses shake things up in the next update.

ZOS has been trying little by little for years now to up the difficulty of the Overland through side challenges, and that's just their latest thing.

This expansion brought harder public dungeons (that group event boss in silent halls is actually one I've had to help friends with) and now we getting those roaming bosses. Dragons and Harrowstorms as the group events. There's also harder world bosses like Kung Fu Kitty, for example.

They are doing that to keep the playerbase together while still adding some stuff for the crowd that wants harder content.

So they are listening, but they can only work with suggestions that fit into the parameters they need to make it work.

It can't take up too much of the devs time, has to be something the majority can make use of so that the numbers are there to justify the cost, and don't split the playerbase.