800k people don't seem to mind difficult overworld

Elsonso

CP5 wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact that he clearly stated people didn't like "the old gold and silver zones" when that isn't the point.

Honestly, I think the point is that it _is_ the point. The question isn't about sliders or instances or mob mechanics or whatever other way the same question can be asked. These are just the same "we want harder overland content" questions. The answer is going to come back that people didn't want to do that sort of content when it was in the game, so they changed the game.

I see some bargaining going on regarding this. Maybe if ZOS does it _this_ way, or maybe if doing it _that_ way would allow both groups to coexist. Maybe the question people should be asking Rich is why it does not matter _how_ it is done.

CP5

"That sort of content," blanket buffs to health and damage that didn't make mobs more interesting to fight. You know what other kinds of content some people don't want? Stories and worlds populated with enemies who can't be bothered to fight back, rendering the plot pointless and the exploration hollow.

What good is an end of the world threat if it can't even resist a player who is moderately competent at the game? What's the point of exploring a dangerous local when the locals are doing everything in their power to avoid inconveniencing you?

Why do tank mobs literally leave the fight, so their allies are defenseless, rather than staying to protect them? Why do archers waste 10s of their time charging a single shot when their basic attacks are more damaging and more of a threat?

An issue exist that prevents a fairly sizable pool of players from even wanting to engage with the largest bit of content ZOS puts out. I know many people enjoy things as is, but becoming hostile against the idea of an option being given to others isn't going to get us anywhere.

Parasaurolophus

Amottica wrote: »

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.

>

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Overland eso has never been difficult. The claim that OT has made locations more casual is a misconception. Mobs of your level have always been easy to kill, with perhaps a few exceptions. The main problem was that we couldn't explore the locations freely. We could only go along a given route, because the level of mobs increased as we moved along the location. But it was still the same boring overland as it is now. Silver and Gold finished so few people, then that many players did not find the overland interesting. Having passed the locations of their alliance, very few people wanted to complete twice more. You went one location after another, one after another ... And nothing changed. The level of mobs was growing, but it was pointless. And the quality of the vanilla locations in comparison with the numbered parts of the series was terrible. So there was no difficulty. The game was saved by the appearance of veteran dungeons and trials. High-end content has appeared in the game. Scaling content. Cancellation of the required subscription. Release of new dlc. New advertising campaign.

trackdemon5512

CP5 wrote: »

"Uh, so we had that ... at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out."

Right here, he references the silver and gold zones.

@CP5 if you’re going to use a quote then please quote it properly.

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

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

And then the immediate continuation of that exchange

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

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

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

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

Rich does several things here:

1) He notes that Cadwell’s Silver and Gold was a jumping off point for moving more difficult content to world bosses, dungeons, and arenas.

2) Notes that there are indeed some that want extra difficulty in the story content, but that a far greater number don’t and do not want to engage with such.

3) Beyond the constant calls by a crowd for story content with increased difficulty there exists hard data to the contrary and supporting the notion that such content isn’t wanted by the masses.

4) He ties success with that data and the ability to log freely quest without encumbrances.

5) Craglorn serves as a constant example of current content that is more difficult yet has significantly lower interaction/engagement.

6) That making things more difficult, whether for some or all, is not easy. There exists a lot of technical work in addition to creating reasons/rewards to motivate all players. Both technology development AND incentive development are significant barriers to implementation.

7) That player behavior in the end is against it. Players prefer to do what’s easiest and fastest. And on a personal note that is incredibly true. Players would like to have high dps and burn that allows them to bypass mechanics than actually learn the combat. That’s not just overland but every single dungeon, arena, and trial. Why deal with the adds in VVH? Everyone just tells you to increase your Dps these days. They don’t tell ya about what each boss mechanic is and how to strategically counter it. The vast majority say “your burn isnt high enough. Go back, get it up, and then skip the mechanics”.

Rich clearly knows it’s a waste of time in the end.

Elsonso

CP5 wrote: »

You know what other kinds of content some people don't want? Stories and worlds populated with enemies who can't be bothered to fight back, rendering the plot pointless and the exploration hollow.

What good is an end of the world threat if it can't even resist a player who is moderately competent at the game? What's the point of exploring a dangerous local when the locals are doing everything in their power to avoid inconveniencing you?

Why do tank mobs literally leave the fight, so their allies are defenseless, rather than staying to protect them? Why do archers waste 10s of their time charging a single shot when their basic attacks are more damaging and more of a threat?

Interesting questions. Break them down into neutral questions, something that fits on a couple Twitch chat lines and isn't designed to provoke or demand, and ask Rich during his streams. Being asked why the game does this or that is more likely to get an answer than "change this", and they are a nice change from the "what is coming next update" questions that he cannot answer.

spartaxoxo

Callosum wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

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.

When asked how it would hurt other players if there was an optional veteran overland we have explained that IF there was an optional overland and IF it were actually used by very many players THEN it would cause a split in the playerbase. That is not saying we believe that it will ever happen because it's a very small minority who want this, but just explains why it would be bad for the game IF it did.

But this will never be an issue because there is too small a number who want this to make it feasible in the first place.

One thing you keep on telling everyone in these threads is that we are "very small minority". I don't really think that you actually have any idea whether this is true or not. Just looking a recent poll it seems to be quite even on this forum and even if this is a specific selection of the playersbase "a very small minority" is probably not true after all.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/583436/what-type-of-overland-would-you-prefer/p1

The developers are the ones who let everyone know that the vast majority of players in this game are here for the story and do not like or use difficult content. They are the ones with the engagement and player retention metrics to know who is the minority and who is not. And they have let us know it's not just a minority of players that want, but a small one. As the vast majority do not.

When asked about difficulty content

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

When asked what players want in a separate interview

The vast majority of our player base loves the exploration, loves the lore, loves the story side of things. So we focus a lot of our time and effort on that. Two of our four major updates every year are focused on story and exploration. The other two are focused on quality of life, are focused on group-oriented activities with the dungeons or adding new systems.

People need to recognize when they are nowhere close to the majority and temper their expectations accordingly. If the same people actually suggested things ZOS could actually act on instead of the pipe dream that is a new overland with reworked mechanics, maybe something could be improved.

TheS1X

Make more difficult puzzles and overland enemies that are actually dangerous or difficult to fight with, would like to see more scary things too like actually one hit killing traps. Traps that are ingame atm are booring as hell, u can just roll trought those or just run and heal.

trackdemon5512

Callosum wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

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.

When asked how it would hurt other players if there was an optional veteran overland we have explained that IF there was an optional overland and IF it were actually used by very many players THEN it would cause a split in the playerbase. That is not saying we believe that it will ever happen because it's a very small minority who want this, but just explains why it would be bad for the game IF it did.

But this will never be an issue because there is too small a number who want this to make it feasible in the first place.

One thing you keep on telling everyone in these threads is that we are "very small minority". I don't really think that you actually have any idea whether this is true or not. Just looking a recent poll it seems to be quite even on this forum and even if this is a specific selection of the playersbase "a very small minority" is probably not true after all.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/583436/what-type-of-overland-would-you-prefer/p1

I just looked at that poll. It’s a sample size of less than 300 players, all of whom are savvy/engaged enough that they’ve registered on the forums (which is a headache to even do).

That in no way can reflect all 19 million possible players that have set up an account and actually played. And whether it’s the players who log in daily or those who play only a few times a year it is the totality of all them that matters as they all will put down cash to play.

spartaxoxo

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Callosum wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

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.

When asked how it would hurt other players if there was an optional veteran overland we have explained that IF there was an optional overland and IF it were actually used by very many players THEN it would cause a split in the playerbase. That is not saying we believe that it will ever happen because it's a very small minority who want this, but just explains why it would be bad for the game IF it did.

But this will never be an issue because there is too small a number who want this to make it feasible in the first place.

One thing you keep on telling everyone in these threads is that we are "very small minority". I don't really think that you actually have any idea whether this is true or not. Just looking a recent poll it seems to be quite even on this forum and even if this is a specific selection of the playersbase "a very small minority" is probably not true after all.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/583436/what-type-of-overland-would-you-prefer/p1

I just looked at that poll. It’s a sample size of less than 300 players, all of whom are savvy/engaged enough that they’ve registered on the forums (which is a headache to even do).

That in no way can reflect all 19 million possible players that have set up an account and actually played. And whether it’s the players who log in daily or those who play only a few times a year it is the totality of all them that matters as they all will put down cash to play.

300 is enough for a poll if it was a random representative sample. What makes it not work is the forums aren't a representative sample and instead involves less casual people. Being in this biased environment makes that poll not a good one.

The play metrics the devs have are much more reliable, and as they said those numbers don't lie.

kargen27

CP5 wrote: »

Hallothiel wrote: »

Because it would take time & resources to implement & maintain. Which would be better spent elsewhere in the game.

Do you have no concept of the cost of this? Or the coding involved? This is a business, run for profit, not to be ‘nice’.

Took time and resources to make companions. Not everyone uses them. Was that a waste? I barely use mine, but I would say no. Trials take time and effort, and pvp'ers don't touch them. Are those a waste? No piece of content has to be for everyone, and clearly by these threads continuing there is an interest in this content to exist. And hey, if they did make it, all of their older content players never touched may actually get played.

Read that last line as "I've not bothered to play the skyrim story through since 2 quest in I already saw how it was going to end and was bored by the impending doom of the world."

All those things you mentioned are extremely popular compared to the interest we see in overland content. I went back and read this entire thread. I admit it isn't a fair representation of the game population and maybe not even the forums but the idea of separate vet instances gets little support even in this thread.
A lot of people say they wouldn't mind. Most the people that want more difficulty ask for sliders or something along those lines. I counted seven people that are pushing hard for separate vet overland. There is more support for harder content we could opt for in the solo instances.
We have a few people in this thread that really want vet overland and a few that are really against the idea. By few I mean less than ten people. I don't remember a thread where this idea has ever gained support beyond about that number. It is the same few people all the time. The vast majority in this thread really don't mind one way or the other. Many pointed out even if they did want it it can't/won't happen.

We had a lot of side conversations in these 21 pages. We talked about New World and whether it is really good or not. We talked about pre Tamreil One. Craglorn got a lot of discussion. We discussed how easy of difficult it would be to code. We had discussions about what happened when other games offered more difficult content. Conversations were all over the place but in the end very few people in this thread actually are adamant about a vet level instance of overland.

I would enjoy playing in a vet overland where the mobs and bosses had better more challenging mechanics. It isn't going to happen though. Those of us that would play there beyond the first month or so is such small number it isn't worth ZoS's time to go in a create mechanics for all the creatures that inhabit those zones. They couldn't just cookie cutter it and give them all the same mechanics or we would figure it out in a week and be back again saying that isn't hard enough.

What we want is something that whether is was successful or not simply isn't good for the game. The good thing is there is plenty of other content in ESO that is difficult we can enjoy. I'm currently going through each zone seeing how many of the world bosses I can solo. I've found a few that take me multiple tries and a couple so far that I can't finish. This adventure has shown me the game is not dead because unless it is really late at night it is normal for another player and sometimes multiple players to join the fight.

essi2

ZOS decided to put all the challenge of ESO into Instanced content; VetDLC, Trials and Arenas.

Unless they for some bizarre reason decide this was a bad idea, this won't change.

What you want OP and others, is literally the opposite of what ZOS decided was best for the game.

CP5

Companions weren't going to happen until they did. Outfit stations, even dye stations, weren't in the game at launch but are now one of ZOS's biggest points of making money by putting out dozens of motifs. Trials weren't even part of the base game, but now make up the core of end game pve content. What isn't good for the game is looking at the group of players who run that content regularly but then log out until their next raid, who want to explore the world but bore of it, that no, you guys go to your trials and arena's and be happy there, these year-long stories aren't for you unless you intentionally inhibit yourselves as to not blitz through the content.

AlexanderDeLarge

CP5 wrote: »

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.

We keep bringing it up because it's been dismissed by the usual suspects and we actually have something to gain here. The naysayers are oddly invested in downplaying an extremely recurrent request, what they gain from doing so is ??? As for the game's implementation response to our request, I'm not concerned about that. They pay their designers extremely well to figure out the logistics so I'll let them worry about that, especially after the great suggestions for Champion Point 2.0 were ignored. I'm doing my part by adding my voice to this recurrent and seemingly very popular request.

As for the long-term health of the game I don't understand why everyone's so 'concerned' about the types asking for a veteran overland, leaving the normal overland 'empty' after downplaying the request and labeling us a vocal minority in the same breath. Seems to me that if that's a legitimate threat to the normal overland populations then it's far more of a popular request than these naysayers are leading this whole thread to believe.

Why should I have a miserable overland experience just so a couple veteran players who spend their free time AFKing around world bosses waiting for newbies to start the WB encounter? That's an absolutely ridiculous mentality people seem to have in this thread.

SilverBride

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

We keep bringing it up because it's been dismissed by the usual suspects and we actually have something to gain here. The naysayers are oddly invested in downplaying an extremely recurrent request, what they gain from doing so is ???

I speak against this because the game was failing before One Tamriel, and is now more successful than its ever been. I love this game and do not want to see it harmed to appease a minority opinion.

AlexanderDeLarge

essi2 wrote: »

What you want OP and others, is literally the opposite of what ZOS decided was best for the game.

Well the only quote we have to go on is that this decision was made because people weren't playing Cadwell Silver/Gold (harder versions of the base game's content, which was boring and sucked) and a single adventure zone (Craglorn, group mandatory at a time when grouping and phasing mechanics were broken and hardly anyone was playing because aforementioned content being bad and the Veteran Rank system not doing them any favors).

The game is wildly different now after 5 chapters, 10+ zone DLCs and we're dealing with unprecedented levels of power creep in a game that touts 'horizontal progression' as a selling point.

AlexanderDeLarge

SilverBride wrote: »

ZoS adds features and content that they feel is good for the game.

And I disagree greatly with their assessment and their decision on the matter has resulted in me logging in 3-4 times a year and logging out within a couple minutes as a result of the systemic power creep making the game the antithesis of fun as mentioned many times in this thread.

As long as I have the ability to make my voice heard on the single problem that keeps me from playing one of my favorite games of all time, I will. Frankly I'm just wondering what you get out of any of this because you've spent more time in this thread than I have and I actually have something to gain here.

If we're just going to throw up our hands and say "well ZOS decides for us and that's that", shut the forums down because there's no point.

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

We keep bringing it up because it's been dismissed by the usual suspects and we actually have something to gain here. The naysayers are oddly invested in downplaying an extremely recurrent request, what they gain from doing so is ???

I speak against this because the game was failing before One Tamriel, and is now more successful than its ever been. I love this game and do not want to see it harmed to appease a minority opinion.

And you came to the assessment that the difficulty is responsible for the game's failure? Despite every systemic issue I've repeatedly brought up? Not the fact that grouping was broken, not the fact that phasing combined with respawn timers made those who managed to actually group up and play with their friends despite the issues took twenty minutes to do a quest that should've taken five at best? Not the fact that the Veteran Rank system for those of who persevered through the boring base game's content was tedious?

spartaxoxo

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Why should I have a miserable overland experience just so a couple veteran players who spend their free time AFKing around world bosses waiting for newbies to start the WB encounter? That's an absolutely ridiculous mentality people seem to have in this thread.

The vet players aren't waiting around for Zone Chat SOS. They are playing Overland at the same time as the casuals and newbies, and then happen to see the request. You can't expect the entire game to cater to your interest and skill level. Some stuff is for the casuals, who make up the VAST majority of the game. It's needed for the health of the game for there to be interaction points between newbies and vets outside of guilds.

This is how that's done in this game.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

We keep bringing it up because it's been dismissed by the usual suspects and we actually have something to gain here. The naysayers are oddly invested in downplaying an extremely recurrent request, what they gain from doing so is ???

I speak against this because the game was failing before One Tamriel, and is now more successful than its ever been. I love this game and do not want to see it harmed to appease a minority opinion.

It is good you enjoy the game as is. I honestly enjoyed my time pre One Tamriel, and remember well how, for example, the nightblade class had more bugs than skills and passives. The game had issues far beyond silver and gold zones difficulty. I understand you keep saying that is a reason why you left, and you welcomed the changes to it, but just because you enjoy what's here now doesn't mean ZOS can't add more alongside it. Nothing was deleted when companions were added, and if you don't care for them, you don't need to interact with them at all. How would a vet overland be different?

AlexanderDeLarge

spartaxoxo wrote: »

The vet players aren't waiting around for Zone Chat SOS. They are playing Overland at the same time as the casuals and newbies, and then happen to see the request. You can't expect the entire game to cater to your interest and skill level. Some stuff is for the casuals, who make up the VAST majority of the game. It's needed for the health of the game for there to be interaction points between newbies and vets outside of guilds.

This is how that's done in this game. [

I can only speak for myself and I'm not. I'm not even logging in because I along with presumably many others have stopped playing almost entirely because we're sick of a 45 minute quest chain building up the 'big bad' to be intimidating only to one shot them with a left click. The hardest thing about overland at this point is the travel times between you and your quest markers. It's tedious, it's boring and it's the antithesis of fun.

I can't expect a modicum of difficulty or fun in the overwhelming majority of this MMO's content? Well that says a lot about the systemic problems this game has thanks to years of power creep.

spartaxoxo

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

The vet players aren't waiting around for Zone Chat SOS. They are playing Overland at the same time as the casuals and newbies, and then happen to see the request. You can't expect the entire game to cater to your interest and skill level. Some stuff is for the casuals, who make up the VAST majority of the game. It's needed for the health of the game for there to be interaction points between newbies and vets outside of guilds.

This is how that's done in this game. [

I can only speak for myself and I'm not. I'm not even logging in because I along with presumably many others have stopped playing almost entirely because we're sick of a 45 minute quest chain building up the 'big bad' to be intimidating only to one shot them with a left click. The hardest thing about overland at this point is the travel times between you and your quest markers. It's tedious, it's boring and it's the antithesis of fun.

I can't expect a modicum of difficulty or fun in the overwhelming majority of this MMO's content? Well that says a lot about the systemic problems this game has thanks to years of power creep.

You can, but you have to think about bow to frame your request into something actually actionable instead of only what is ideal. Right now you guys are letting perfect be the enemy of good, by focusing on the request that the devs said wouldn't be impossible.

So ask yourselves what else can devs do to make things more of a challenge? More stuff like the roaming bosses? Debuff food? Etc.

Something I'd like to see for example is challenge banners added to the big bad story bosses. That's much more limited in scope and since it's already instanced content, there's no impact at all on casuals.

CP5

spartaxoxo wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

The vet players aren't waiting around for Zone Chat SOS. They are playing Overland at the same time as the casuals and newbies, and then happen to see the request. You can't expect the entire game to cater to your interest and skill level. Some stuff is for the casuals, who make up the VAST majority of the game. It's needed for the health of the game for there to be interaction points between newbies and vets outside of guilds.

This is how that's done in this game. [

I can only speak for myself and I'm not. I'm not even logging in because I along with presumably many others have stopped playing almost entirely because we're sick of a 45 minute quest chain building up the 'big bad' to be intimidating only to one shot them with a left click. The hardest thing about overland at this point is the travel times between you and your quest markers. It's tedious, it's boring and it's the antithesis of fun.

I can't expect a modicum of difficulty or fun in the overwhelming majority of this MMO's content? Well that says a lot about the systemic problems this game has thanks to years of power creep.

You can, but you have to think about bow to frame your request into something actually actionable instead of only what is ideal. Right now you guys are letting perfect be the enemy of good, by focusing on the request that the devs said wouldn't be impossible.

So ask yourselves what else can devs do to make things more of a challenge? More stuff like the roaming bosses? Debuff food? Etc.

Something I'd like to see for example is challenge banners added to the big bad story bosses. That's much more limited in scope and since it's already instanced content, there's no impact at all on casuals.

Utilizing the ability ZOS has to have different rules between instance types, like they had in the overland zones pre One Tamriel and currently have in every dungeon, trial, and pvp zone. Having enemies with useless abilities or counterproductive abilities replaced with ones that actually impact combat. And having weak enemy skills made into something worthwhile.

For example, give npc tank mobs more armor, so they can take a hit, replace their leap from the battle skill with chains and talons, and voila, an enemy that protects their allies like a tank should and makes the encounter more interesting than just burning down all targets in the same number of hits of arrow spray.

It isn't a matter of perfection, it is a matter of effort. As is, almost every overland mob falls into the camp of either 30k health blob or 100k health blob. The 30k ones all act the same so there isn't much difference save for if they are ranged or melee, and the 100k ones at least have a chance to fight back, but other than that they are so interchangeable and the differences between them are meaningless, making any fight just as bland as the last.

Amottica

Hallothiel wrote: »

And again to everyone harping on how this would divide the player base too much.

1. Zones are already broken into shards, so you don't even see everyone whose in a zone unless it is a particularly dead one in which case this changes nothing.
2. If this choice would be so popular that this is an issue, then clearly it is something worth making.

There may be different instances, but the player base is still mixed. New players can call upon more experienced for help with stuff that they might find difficult (& please do understand that not all players are good at this game, but nonetheless enjoy playing). This is a good thing. A separate vet instance would change that, and the feel of the game.

And its not about it being so popular, it’s about time & money being spent on this which is then used by a very few players, who would not doubt still be complaining after they got used to it.

As I have said before, if this was a profitable thing to do, it would have been done by now.

This is really what it comes down to. Even Rich stated in that video (linked earlier in this thread) that the game has never been more popular than it is now (with the current zone design).

This is also where the discussion really lies. It is not between us as our differences of opinion are fairly unimportant. None of us make the decisions. Zenimax, like any good business, needs to look at the value for the time and money they put into something. Especially fro something that is not so simple to create.

Rich laid out why they are not creating such an option for players. So it is up to those interested in a veteran zone to find the means to demonstrate to Zenimax that there is a large percentage of the player base interested in this. The number of forum threads or length of them does not work because that is an extremely small percentage of the player base.

Good luck to those interested in this.

Amottica

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

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.

>

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Overland eso has never been difficult. The claim that OT has made locations more casual is a misconception. Mobs of your level have always been easy to kill, with perhaps a few exceptions. The main problem was that we couldn't explore the locations freely. We could only go along a given route, because the level of mobs increased as we moved along the location. But it was still the same boring overland as it is now. Silver and Gold finished so few people, then that many players did not find the overland interesting. Having passed the locations of their alliance, very few people wanted to complete twice more. You went one location after another, one after another ... And nothing changed. The level of mobs was growing, but it was pointless. And the quality of the vanilla locations in comparison with the numbered parts of the series was terrible. So there was no difficulty. The game was saved by the appearance of veteran dungeons and trials. High-end content has appeared in the game. Scaling content. Cancellation of the required subscription. Release of new dlc. New advertising campaign.

@Parasaurolophus

Difficulty is subjective. I am pretty certain Rich was not suggesting the vet zones were Skyrim Legendary difficulty.

Also, as I noted in the post above, there is no argument between us since any difference of opinion we may have is not relevant and even more so since we all represent an extremely small percentage of the player base. Rich made clear that the game has never been more successful than it is with the current zone designs. As such players need to convince him/them that there is a significant percentage of the player base that wants this so they will feel this is work the effort. In other words, make a real business case and the numbers posting in this thread or even the number of related threads fall way short since we, in total, only represent a small percentage of the player base.

CP5

Amottica raises a good point, and it is easy getting into the mindset of trying to force one's ideas onto others. Following their post, I'll leave the original post from a thread I started a few days ago that ZOS locked because this thread exists, where mine was more of a solution rather than just a comment on the problem some players have. I skipped the first paragraph because that was mostly just an intorduction.

First are the issues' people like me currently have with overland and questing content.
Enemies intentionally using abilities that waste their own time or are counterproductive to the fight. This is things like tank npcs leaping out of fights to leave their allies to die, or conjurer mobs summoning literal bubbles that do so little I still don't know their purpose. Many enemy types have abilities like these that take forever to go off and result in nothing if they do, fireworks to make the fight seem more intense without contributing to the fight.
Enemies blending together. Having jumped around several other games lately, and having played games before ESO, it is amazing how little the type of enemy you're fighting matters. An npc dual wielding daggers vs a npc in heavy armor with a sword and shield both fight the same, same hp, same armor, same damage output, with the main factor between the two being which one will pick the 'waste their own time' ability first in a fight.

This makes almost any fight feel exactly the same, and to any player who understands that using an ability that hits multiple targets at once for its full damage, (carve, arrow spray, impulse, exc.) you can kill any group of 3 mobs no matter the composition without even recognizing who you fought. It would make the fights forgettable, but they would have to be remembered first to be forgotten, and they aren't worth that.
Held punches. In the tutorial you are forced to do several things, blocking heavy attacks, bashing to interrupt, cc breaking. Add in something like moving out of red aoe's and these make the core gameplay tools all players have access to. Now, for vet content these skills are used often, more so in pvp, but in overland when do these matter? What mobs aside from world bosses hit hard enough to warrant a block? Which enemies channel spells dangerous enough to be worth your time to interrupt? Which aoe attacks are even big enough for you to find yourself caught in if you actively move during a fight?

Without engaging these core gameplay tools, overland fails to teach players how to use them and fails to engage players who are already used to content that demands this level of interaction. ESO is a fun game to play, but when the standard fights don't even try to ask anything of you in these areas, I could get a similar or better experience elsewhere.
Forgettable bosses. With the One Tamriel update, every zone in the game was brought onto the same level. This is great, since before with zone's being tiered to level ranges if you out-leveled a zone you enjoyed then you had to leave to keep leveling, but not too fast else you enter a zone above your level and hit the artificial difficulty of enemies dodging attacks. The draw back is every zone could be someone's first zone.

But after clearing their first, or second, or third zone, amassing many skills and decent gear, many players would expect the challenges they face to become more difficult to match their expanding skills. Here your only option is to do group content, solo group content, or do solo arena's. Every zone's story is delivered as if to a new player each time, leaving those who already know what kind of path the plot will take with nothing, since the fights don't engage the player beyond 'deal damage and maybe heal some.'

Now, there is nothing wrong with ESO's current overland. The game goes strong because a large enough part of the population enjoys it, and there is a reason why ZOS keeps putting it out as the largest bit of content. But for both long time players who are looking to do something beyond dungeons and trials, and for new players both looking for a challenge, or looking to practice their abilities outside of group content, overland offers nothing. Self gimping doesn't solve the issue of enemies refusing to fight back, it doesn't matter if the enemy type who does that whole 'backup then throw knife' routine takes 10s to kill or 10min, or if his knife one-shots if it lands or just snares. The simple fact is that enemy is a one note challenge that once overcome does nothing to engage a player despite what satisfaction you could gain by waiting next to him for the last second of his throw channel to approach only to interrupt him and leave him in the dirt. The goal of vet overland would be to let the overland content take advantage of all the game has to offer to provide more memorable and meaningful encounters.

Now to get this bit out of the way now, rewards. Many people against this idea point to "you just want better loot" as a counterargument. Some ideas have been thrown around by others with varying degrees of commitment that helped fuel these responses, so here is my offer. Slain enemies award more exp to the same ratio that they do between normal and veteran dungeons (compensating for the longer time to kill them, which isn't even enough as is since people would rather farm normal Blackrose for exp rather than vet), and loot dropped by slain enemies or world events would drop one tier higher (green to blue, blue to purple, purple stays purple), and despite the better quality loot people would still farm normal overland for gear because more chances at a drop are better than fewer unless you only need jewelry.

So, the issues are that fights are forgettable, generally seen as a waste of time and avoided, with enemies who don't stand out from one another and with bosses that leave entire year long stories falling flat for some players with anti-climatic endings. I know this would take time to implement, that time is resources, but if they did this then it could be implemented to every zone both present and future and would help people engage with content they wouldn't otherwise ever think to do. So here are some of the steps to do this.
Implement an option in some menu to enter "vet overland." On toggle, you would be sent to the nearest wayshrine in a vet instance of your current zone and would be free to turn it off at any time. Note that resource nodes, chest, quest, and the like, all wouldn't award more. Just enemies killed, since they are the only place where difficulty would be altered.
A slight buff to mobs health and damage, enough to make them survive long enough to act and hurt enough to be worth notice.
Remove worthless skills from enemies.

Don't have tanks leave the fight and let their allies die, only to return a few seconds later to be killed off themselves. Instead, let them use guard more, and chains and roots, plus a healthy amount of armor to make people actually understand why armor pen is a thing.

Take the literally worthless conjurer bubble and replace it with any other summon.

Have necromancers raise multiple undead at once then use an aoe buff rather than a single target one. That would make any fight with multiple necromancers more interesting, more so if there are already some undead in the area.

Have npc healers actually heal. Give the standard healers the same aoe heal some elite mobs have, like the ones in White Gold Tower. Let them use the single target heal without cooldown unless interrupted so they don't waste time trying to do pitiful damage.

Let fire mages summon large fields of fire that deal more damage, encouraging players to work around the hazard rather than just being amused with the fire puddle placed on a random crate away from the fight.

Give frost mage shields the same trait that the druid totems in Selene's web have, encouraging ranged mobs to stack behind it for protection. The AI doesn't need to be overhauled, just passive synergy would be enough.
The equally challenging part would be tweaking bosses. Wouldn't be nearly as impressive as what we see in dungeons, where the dev's have plenty of time to script out each fight, but they wouldn't need to. Finding interesting combinations of mobs plus a boss with an ability that plays to those mobs strengths, or finding a set of abilities that synergize in an interesting way, would be enough to at least make these encounters memorable. Like, say, a necromancer boss that endlessly summons mobs, so their necromancer minions can buff them. Or a frost mage boss summoning spikes of ice that also have the 'projectile shield' ability, providing their minions' protection. If mobs would fit a boss that doesn't have any to begin with, then a simple ability that triggers at the beginning of a fight to summon them in would be enough, no need to even modify the world space. Things of that nature.

Like I said, I understand this is a tired subject and many have already made their call on which side they are on. But please understand, it is fine if people enjoy the content as it is, it is fine if people would like to see it improved, this is how I would see the option added for those interested so that they may enjoy more of the game, and I leave it to the forums to do whatever with.

Also [snip] the reason why a player who puts, so little time into the game should be respected is because they are putting little time into the game for a reason, and that reason is likely relevant to other players and could be causing them to leave the game as well. The game's long-term health comes down to gaining players just as much as maintaining the interest of players it already has, and in that area I personally feel the game could be doing better.

[Edited to remove Name]

CP5

[Quoted Posts Removed]

And those players who walked away could have put more time into the game than you have during your whole time here, does that add any merit to their reasons for drifting away from the game? I run vet content all the time and log in less and less frequently if I'm not doing so for a raid, and many of those in my groups log in only for raids.

These players often get told "overland content isn't for you, got back to vet trials and arenas." These players already do those, plugging thousands of hours into the same halls fighting the same bosses. People get tired of Vateshran after the millionth run, and ESO does questing and exploration well. These players are bored senseless by the lack of engagement in these areas though and chose instead to leave rather than bore themselves, but when pointing these issues are just told 'the content isn't for you.' Encouraging players to leave a game you enjoy won't end well in the long run, because as long as that issue continues, players will leave because of it.

AlexanderDeLarge

[Quoted Post Removed]

Because it's not worth commenting on. How is instanced group dungeon content relevant to the discussion at hand? Maybe I don't like running dungeons and raids. Not saying I do or don't but I'm not going to post a screenshot of my collections to prove it either way. What do you propose? People who want a modicum of difficulty to stay in instances 24/7/365 or to AFK around world bosses?

The fact of the matter is the majority of the content being sold to us every single year is overland quests and the experience for us doing those quests is riding on a horse for five minutes to one shot enemies through dozens of quests in a chain culminating in a final horse ride to the waypoint where I one shot the boss all the NPCs were talking up as some intimidating foe. The overwhelming majority of the game's content is not enjoyable past an extremely early point in the endgame experience. It sucks and it warrants discussion and should be addressed with a veteran overland update.

kargen27

"Utilizing the ability ZOS has to have different rules between instance types, like they had in the overland zones pre One Tamriel"

But they didn't have different rules. Same rules different level. The zones had levels back then and you could go in under leveled if you wanted. People remember it being harder. They don't remember why it was harder. It wasn't because of superior tactics and mechanics from the NPCs. It was because compared to the content we were wimps. Back then speaking for myself I couldn't weave light attacks and was prone to standing in one place as I tried to pull off something that might look like a bit of a rotation. 20k DPS was a goal I was sure I would never reach. Now switching out a few skills I'm popping 50k on my healer. I switch CP also and that goes 60+. I've become better and I go to other parts of the game for when I want a challenge.

Again I would like to see harder content especially in solo instances that we can opt into. I would participate in vet overland. There is zero upside to ZoS adding it at this point in the game. If they did increase difficulty how they did it would alienate some players. The amount they increased it would have some players saying it was to much and others saying it was not enough. If they gave better rewards you would have players saying they are to good or not good enough. They would have people that PvP say why waste time on this when Cyrodiil doesn't work. It goes on and on. And in the end all that angst the reward for ZoS if history is any indication would be empty under utilized vet zones. It is a harsh truth and knowing that we can either stick around and play what we enjoy or move on to something that might better provide that experience. The constant bringing up the issue every week or so only improves our typing skills as we argue a moot topic.

Again even in this thread the idea of a separate vet instance for overland gets very little support other than yeah that might be okay.

kargen27

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

[Quoted Post Removed]

Because it's not worth commenting on. How is instanced group dungeon content relevant to the discussion at hand? Maybe I don't like running dungeons and raids. Not saying I do or don't but I'm not going to post a screenshot of my collections to prove it either way. What do you propose? People who want a modicum of difficulty to stay in instances 24/7/365 or to AFK around world bosses?

The fact of the matter is the majority of the content being sold to us every single year is overland quests and the experience for us doing those quests is riding on a horse for five minutes to one shot enemies through dozens of quests in a chain culminating in a final horse ride to the waypoint where I one shot the boss all the NPCs were talking up as some intimidating foe. The overwhelming majority of the game's content is not enjoyable past an extremely early point in the endgame experience. It sucks and it warrants discussion and should be addressed with a veteran overland update.

Maybe that is your problem. You are riding your horse from point A to point B and not enjoying all there is between. That aside you also get a story. Sometimes it is a very good story even if the final battle is anticlimactic. The majority is overland quests though you are right there. Thing is unless you have multiple characters quests are one and done. Unless you are one of the few that like to delete characters so they can do quests again the number of times you do that content is a very small number and then you move on.
There is a very miniscule number of players asking for vet overland zones. That small number is only going to be there once or twice as they do the quests then be done with it. Trials and dungeons can be done and are done hundreds of times. They are instanced to individual groups. It makes sense to offer harder content on those places. In a zone where after the story the main purpose of being there is to pick flowers and dig treasure chests why would they want to put all that time and effort into making a more difficult instance? It wouldn't be a sound business decision and it wouldn't be good for game in general.

Girl_Number8

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

[Quoted Post Removed]

Because it's not worth commenting on. How is instanced group dungeon content relevant to the discussion at hand? Maybe I don't like running dungeons and raids. Not saying I do or don't but I'm not going to post a screenshot of my collections to prove it either way. What do you propose? People who want a modicum of difficulty to stay in instances 24/7/365 or to AFK around world bosses?

The fact of the matter is the majority of the content being sold to us every single year is overland quests and the experience for us doing those quests is riding on a horse for five minutes to one shot enemies through dozens of quests in a chain culminating in a final horse ride to the waypoint where I one shot the boss all the NPCs were talking up as some intimidating foe. The overwhelming majority of the game's content is not enjoyable past an extremely early point in the endgame experience. It sucks and it warrants discussion and should be addressed with a veteran overland update.

It actually is worth commenting on. I think you would really enjoy the friendship and difficulty of the veteran content. That and PvP are a natural progression from overland.

That is where I went and happily ZOS has been continuing adding such content. Resources are needed for such things.

I disagree with the changes you’re suggesting because of newer players and the resource issue. Also, they already used to have harder zones and they got rid of it but I am sure you were told that.

And yes, I do not think ZOS should cater to non-players. That would be silly. A paying customer that is playing the game should take precedence. I would certainly think a business would prioritize in such a way.

Psiion

Greetings,

Once again, we have had to remove multiple posts for violating the Community Rules. Debates and disagreements are natural, but Baiting, mocking, or inciting conflict is never constructive. If you cannot find something constructive to add to the conversation, then we suggest finding another thread to participate in. If you feel another member is violating the Community Rules, please report the post for the moderation team to review rather than further derail the thread.

You are welcome to review the Community Rules in full here.