800k people don't seem to mind difficult overworld

Syrpynt

Iccotak wrote: »

sooo Skyrim 2.0 Online

[snip] "Skyrim Online" is always the same retort when someone brings up solo play, and ESO is more than that obviously.

But I bet there is a significant player base that would LOVE to simply do solo content without server lag because they're sharing zones with other players, and thus some content is impossible for casuals, and at the same time, basic overworld content is too easy to be engaging or meaningful. I think the number of mob spawns should be reduced, and they should be more intelligent than knowing to block once every 10 seconds when you're about to HA... More mechanics, more xp, less enemies overall.

It's like mobs are scaled for casuals and bosses are scaled for veteran or groups. When in reality everything should be scaled to the server instance: Solo client instance, or is it a co-op or public server instance?

The problem with solo client instances is that now there's a separate scaling and updating needing to be done in parallel with the public MMO side of things, and thus more work for no more payout than usual.

[edited for baiting]

spartaxoxo

Syrpynt wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

sooo Skyrim 2.0 Online

[snip] "Skyrim Online" is always the same retort when someone brings up solo play, and ESO is more than that obviously.

But I bet there is a significant player base that would LOVE to simply do solo content without server lag because they're sharing zones with other players, and thus some content is impossible for casuals, and at the same time, basic overworld content is too easy to be engaging or meaningful. I think the number of mob spawns should be reduced, and they should be more intelligent than knowing to block once every 10 seconds when you're about to HA... More mechanics, more xp, less enemies overall.

It's like mobs are scaled for casuals and bosses are scaled for veteran or groups. When in reality everything should be scaled to the server instance: Solo client instance, or is it a co-op or public server instance?

The problem with solo client instances is that now there's a separate scaling and updating needing to be done in parallel with the public MMO side of things, and thus more work for no more payout than usual.

What you're describing is an entirely different game. That's incredibly unrealistic.

[edited to remove quote]

Facefister

When people bring up the "But in Skyrim"-argument, I usually stop reading. In Skyrim, I am able to completely obliterate a legendary dragon with a single arrow from my custom dragonbone bow, which has been upgraded into ridiculous levels. And I didn't even use mods or exploits in order to do that.

jaws343

Facefister wrote: »

When people bring up the "But in Skyrim"-argument, I usually stop reading. In Skyrim, I am able to completely obliterate a legendary dragon with a single arrow from my custom dragonbone bow, which has been upgraded into ridiculous levels. And I didn't even use mods or exploits in order to do that.

Yeah, I have a direct dungeon route in Skyrim that gets me one of the strongest enchantments in the game imo (fiery soul trap), as well as a ton of decent starting resources, all before hitting level 10. From there it's all a cakewalk. Nothing like an enchantment that damages enemies and steals souls. Skyrim difficulty has always been about player set challenges and restrictions, because the game can be broken so quickly by just a few mechanics.

Syrpynt

spartaxoxo wrote: »

What you're describing is an entirely different game. That's incredibly unrealistic.

I described pre-OneTamriel, but with content in servers dependent on playstyle between solo players and group players. "Play how you want." No impossible or an entirely different game--it's just that people get so defensive when others suggest that the MMO cookiecutter template isn't the best template for every video game.

Facefister

Apart from the gameplay mechanics, people don't understand how stupidly overpowered a lore-wise Dragonborn is. We're talking about a dragon-killing individual who can manipulate even time itself with his/her voice.

Franchise408

jaws343 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

What I take away from these threads is that some players are burned out, and think that more difficult overland will fix that. And some of these players think that if veteran overland had better drops it would make everyone else want it too, because better loot. Neither is correct.

Yeah, I just can't see how players already burned out on content are going to find repeating the same quests they've already done enjoyable just because they are slightly more difficult. I say this from the perspective of having completed every quest in the game and clearing every single zone and most achievements. I like the simple and relatively easy overland because most of my time in the overland is spent on some grind or another. Not looking for a challenge, just passing time while waiting in BG queues or farming mats/drops during events. I can't see how entering X delve for the 100th time is suddenly going to become enjoyable because a random add now stuns me when before it didn't. Oh no, whatever will my end game character who can solo vet dungeon bosses do when that overland add stuns me in the slightly more challenging overland that the devs wasted resources on?

For some of us, it's not even repeating content, because we aren't even doing it the first time.

Blackwood was a waste of $$$ for me, because it catered simply to the people who want 0 obstacles or challenge in their gaming, and so I ended up with an entire chapter that provided exactly 0 content for me. I have not touched the story quest, and I have not (and likely will not) get a companion. I had no reason to buy Blackwood, but unfortunately, I didn't realize it until I already had bought it.

Now, knowing that ZOS doesn't take me into consideration as a customer, I know that I don't have to spend money on future chapters.

I'm burnt out because ZOS continues to see me as a player that just needs to stay in my cage on vet dungeons and trials and continues to tell me that 95% of the game's content isn't for me.

trackdemon5512

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

I would not be here at all if it weren't called "Elder Scrolls"

And the sad thing is, this game really is just Elder Scrolls in name only. Gameplay wise, it is completely unrecognizable to anything Elder Scrolls. It plays more like Diablo 3 than it does any TES game.

There is a difference between being a TES game and being based on the TES games. ESO is based on TES but is adapted to multiplayer, so will not play the same as a single player game.

Well yes but then again everything in this game is technically canon. And the mechanic to explain away the disparity between multiplayer variable experiences has long been conceptualized with in-game occurrences like Dragon Breaks.

I would argue that ESO, similar to FFXI, FFIV, and Dragon Quest X, be better identified as The Elder Scrolls 6 and let whatever is currently in development be 7. The name change alone would sell copies.

SilverBride

summ0004 wrote: »

Of course constant dying isnt fun and I wouldnt wish that either, but neither is fighting mobs that pose no threat whatsoever to the point where its impossible to die unless you make deliberate attempt to die or go AFK.

It is fun for me and many others like me.

spartaxoxo

Syrpynt wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

What you're describing is an entirely different game. That's incredibly unrealistic.

I described pre-OneTamriel, but with content in servers dependent on playstyle between solo players and group players. "Play how you want." No impossible or an entirely different game--it's just that people get so defensive when others suggest that the MMO cookiecutter template isn't the best template for every video game.

You're asking for the game to become a single player rpg with the mechanics to match if you're not in group. You're literally asking for an entirely different game. This game is built like an MMO because it is one.

spartaxoxo

Facefister wrote: »

When people bring up the "But in Skyrim"-argument, I usually stop reading. In Skyrim, I am able to completely obliterate a legendary dragon with a single arrow from my custom dragonbone bow, which has been upgraded into ridiculous levels. And I didn't even use mods or exploits in order to do that.

In Skryim, I was able to stealth through an entire cave and pickpocket all of their clothes and weapons. And then at the boss I had a bunch of half naked reguards throwing weak punches at me that basically did nothing and I killed them all with extreme ease.

It was funny as all get out, but not at all hard. The hard content in this game is already harder than anything I did in Skyrim.

Franchise408

SilverBride wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

I have just tried making a new char with no CPs and got to level 20 wearing grey and green items and still havent managed to die yet.

How would dying make your experience more enjoyable? Most players get frustrated by dying to what should be easy mobs when trying to complete a simple quest.

Because the threat of dying or losing means that I actually have to be engaged with the content, I actually have to play smart and use tactics and strategy. It actually engages me, rather than putting me to sleep

Hallothiel

JJOtterBear wrote: »

Not sure why we need to make every game the same. Why Can't ESO just be what it is? Why does it have to be like New World. Go play that, if that is what fulfills you.

Why is the solution to change the game for everyone just because a small part of the playerbase thinks it should be?

^^This. So much this.^^

Franchise408

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

I would not be here at all if it weren't called "Elder Scrolls"

And the sad thing is, this game really is just Elder Scrolls in name only. Gameplay wise, it is completely unrecognizable to anything Elder Scrolls. It plays more like Diablo 3 than it does any TES game.

There is a difference between being a TES game and being based on the TES games. ESO is based on TES but is adapted to multiplayer, so will not play the same as a single player game.

Fallout 76 does.

Amottica

colossalvoids wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

Next time hopefully discussion won't be derailed this much and people would be able to actually talk to each other and have ideas coming instead of wasting everyone's time.

Presenting a counter arguement to a proposed major change isn't derailing. Many of us believe this change would be harmful, and are speaking up against it.

Even if we assume Rich would make the same comments/arguments all over again after dissecting the topic and answering straight to the points instead of just casually chatting on twitch as he always do it would be an absolute argument set in stone if only zos would never made mistakes and yet we remember the exact opposite. The more years you played the more situations like "we have the data so here's a change proposal" you should remember like cast time on shields, dots re-standardisation, light/heavy attack rebalance proposal and many more smaller ones like "according to some data there was a change that was scrapped later on because in actuality it wasn't justified or game breaking". Forums exists because people who care enough to voice their opinions are shaping the game for others at times. We did it a lot already and more to come.]

Considering that I have not seen a comment in this thread that provides actual information that proves Rich wrong then I do not see any reason why Rich would not make the same comments and argument. The biggest and more significant reason he provided was that the game has never been more popular than it was when he made those comments which literally says the current design is proving to be much better for business. His other notable comment was that no one played the more challenging vet zones they had when the game launched. With that, he said many completed their own alliance but avoided the more challenging zones.

summ0004

Well we can agree to disagree then. I have raised a concern with the balance of them game that some players find spoils the overall enjoyment to what could otherwise be the best MMO game of its type. Obviously we dont know how many people this bothers, and how many want a braindead overland but this does not matter. But I have heard quite a number of people bring this up on the forums, and heard quite a few in game also mention it, so its definately an issue.

Now if people are really dont want mobs that can do damage to them, then why not give them sort of invulnerability buff so they cant die and complete the story content, or maybe just remove all the mobs from the game if it annoys people having to fight them? ok maybe im being a bit cynical but you get the point.

I was suggesting it would be nice if something could be done, now if it seems that cannot be done, or if somehow other peoples opinions dont matter than so be it.

As a compromise I might even suggest that at the very least the end of quest bosses at least get some sort of optional buff to allow for some immersion so you actually have to fight the boss rather than light attacking it to death. That way the overland will just have trash mobs , but you can get a harder boss if you choose it.

Elsonso

summ0004 wrote: »

You miss the point. Most of the game is the overland, and all the expansions that get released are focused around a new story and zone that alienates any player that is able to do any sort of damage beyond light/heavy attack spams. Where is the incentive for those players to purchase new content if its not fun for them to play it?

Single player games are rolling out Story modes where the character is way OP. It might be that ZOS starts to introduce Story Modes for 4-player dungeons long before they update overland for a veteran mode or make the stories harder. In other words, easier content before hard content.

JJOtterBear wrote: »

Not sure why we need to make every game the same. Why Can't ESO just be what it is? Why does it have to be like New World. Go play that, if that is what fulfills you.

Maybe some players are scratching their itch with New World, but I don't think it is the killer MMO that people thought it was going to be. I see some people flagged for PVP, most are not, and even those that are seem to avoid each other. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There are some things in New World that I like over ESO... fishing is much much much (...) better in New World. ESO does not even have fishing, in comparison. The ability to harvest stuff anywhere, rather than random spawning generic nodes... much better. The crafting system in New World feels significant, while in ESO it feels like something that they forgot about. The last two cannot be added to ESO, but I would love to see a fishing overhaul in ESO and NW is a good model to work with.

Syrpynt

spartaxoxo wrote: »

You're asking for the game to become a single player rpg with the mechanics to match if you're not in group. You're literally asking for an entirely different game. This game is built like an MMO because it is one.

Whoa whoa, I didn't ask. I said I'd like it to be. I never expect this to happen. I even stated that it'd be impossible as client-side would have to return--and developers don't want to have to do an update twice (in parallel) between the Multiplayer and Solo player instances.

Without the TES lore, many of us wouldn't be here and this game wouldn't be as great as it is--don't forget that. TES can survive without the MMO skeleton in ESO. ESO cannot live without the TES flesh over those bones.

spartaxoxo

summ0004 wrote: »

As a compromise I might even suggest that at the very least the end of quest bosses at least get some sort of optional buff to allow for some immersion so you actually have to fight the boss rather than light attacking it to death. That way the overland will just have trash mobs , but you can get a harder boss if you choose it

This is what I meant by challenge banners for quest bosses. For those that maybe don't do hard modes, Challenge banners increase the stats on bosses AND add new mechanics. They can be flipped on and off, at will. Therefore if someone flipped it on and then felt it made things too difficult and unfun, they can just turn it off.

As the big bad story bosses are already solo instanced content, it would have literally zero impact on anyone else.

Franchise408

Facefister wrote: »

When people bring up the "But in Skyrim"-argument, I usually stop reading. In Skyrim, I am able to completely obliterate a legendary dragon with a single arrow from my custom dragonbone bow, which has been upgraded into ridiculous levels. And I didn't even use mods or exploits in order to do that.

There's also difficulty sliders to make the encounters more of a challenge, and the fact that you have to reach a certain character level and skill level before you can have the power to accomplish such feats. In ESO, it's from level 1

Also, another drawback to the overland difficulty being non-existent is the fact that it doesn't prepare players for the more difficult content in game. People arguing against increased difficulty are arguing from a perspective that if you are an overland quester, then you aren't playing dungeons and trials, but this is categorically false, especially considering the fact that an overland guild sends you on quests into dungeons to get players started in the content.

Overland is supposed to be a stepping stone to the more difficult content, but when it is SOOOO easy to get through, players are unprepared going into dungeons when those overland tactics no longer work. This harms everyone in the group and holds back progression.

summ0004

SilverBride wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

Of course constant dying isnt fun and I wouldnt wish that either, but neither is fighting mobs that pose no threat whatsoever to the point where its impossible to die unless you make deliberate attempt to die or go AFK.

It is fun for me and many others like me.

Good for you, but others are allowed an opinion too.

Just curious how many abilities are on your bars when you do overland? Because from my experience it could be done with 1 spammable and light attacks which sort of removes the need for more.

spartaxoxo

Franchise408 wrote: »

Facefister wrote: »

When people bring up the "But in Skyrim"-argument, I usually stop reading. In Skyrim, I am able to completely obliterate a legendary dragon with a single arrow from my custom dragonbone bow, which has been upgraded into ridiculous levels. And I didn't even use mods or exploits in order to do that.

There's also difficulty sliders to make the encounters more of a challenge, and the fact that you have to reach a certain character level and skill level before you can have the power to accomplish such feats. In ESO, it's from level 1

Also, another drawback to the overland difficulty being non-existent is the fact that it doesn't prepare players for the more difficult content in game. People arguing against increased difficulty are arguing from a perspective that if you are an overland quester, then you aren't playing dungeons and trials, but this is categorically false, especially considering the fact that an overland guild sends you on quests into dungeons to get players started in the content.

Overland is supposed to be a stepping stone to the more difficult content, but when it is SOOOO easy to get through, players are unprepared going into dungeons when those overland tactics no longer work. This harms everyone in the group and holds back progression.

Overland prepares you pretty well for normal base game dungeons. It is those dungeons that are to prepare you for vet base game dungeons. And those prepare you for the dlc stuff.

You're not intended nor do most people go from Overland to hard dungeons, nor is Overland intended to prepare you for them.

TequilaFire

Guess I am going to have to look out for killer squirrels now.

Facefister

Even if the enemies in the overland would have 500% more hp, it still wouldn't prepare them for dungeons and trials. The only preparation for dungeons and trials you can get is getting started with the easiest ones and progress on from there. Normal mode dungeons, even DLC ones, are extremely forgiving and offer an insight to the mechanics, so you can prepare yourself.

summ0004

spartaxoxo wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

As a compromise I might even suggest that at the very least the end of quest bosses at least get some sort of optional buff to allow for some immersion so you actually have to fight the boss rather than light attacking it to death. That way the overland will just have trash mobs , but you can get a harder boss if you choose it

This is what I meant by challenge banners for quest bosses. For those that maybe don't do hard modes, Challenge banners increase the stats on bosses AND add new mechanics. They can be flipped on and off, at will. Therefore if someone flipped it on and then felt it made things too difficult and unfun, they can just turn it off.

As the big bad story bosses are already solo instanced content, it would have literally zero impact on anyone else.

Finally we agree on something, I would be happy to see this implemented and would interest me in purchasing the chapters and having some fun playing through it.

SilverBride

Franchise408 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

There is a difference between being a TES game and being based on the TES games. ESO is based on TES but is adapted to multiplayer, so will not play the same as a single player game.

Fallout 76 does.

ESO isn't Fallout 76.

Franchise408

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

There is a difference between being a TES game and being based on the TES games. ESO is based on TES but is adapted to multiplayer, so will not play the same as a single player game.

Fallout 76 does.

ESO isn't Fallout 76.

ESO doesn't resemble an Elder Scrolls game either.

SilverBride

Franchise408 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

There is a difference between being a TES game and being based on the TES games. ESO is based on TES but is adapted to multiplayer, so will not play the same as a single player game.

Fallout 76 does.

ESO isn't Fallout 76.

ESO doesn't resemble an Elder Scrolls game either.

Let's just agree to disagree.

JJOtterBear

ZOS cannot and will never be able to please every player. because that is actually impossible to do. The development of this game has changed direction, and y'all need to just accept that. and if the game is no longer something that pleases you, then yeah, i encourage you to find a game that does.

It's clear that the current state of the game pleases more people. The forums of any game NEVER represent a majority of the playerbase. Most players don't even use the forums. so all this "many players are saying" posts are actually just a minor sliver of the community.

You're all expecting ZOS to cater directly to you, because y'all think you're experts at video games and running a business. A video game studio and dev team are always going to do what pleases the larger group. If you no longer find yourself in that group, then you really have 2 options, accept it and interact with the parts of the game you find enjoyable, or find another game where your opinion is the majority.

Like how long are you all going to be at this? And just keep getting mad over and over and over again? because that's what you're signing yourselves up for at this point.

I'm genuinely sorry that ESO no longer caters to your interests. but at the same time, it doesn't have to. all the game has to do is appeal to the larger population. And currently it does. So ZOS has literally no reason to mess with a formula that is currently working for them.

its sometimes a hard pill to swallow to realize that there are going to be times in life where our opinions just don't matter.

You owe no fealty to this game. Or the devs. Plus, ES6 is coming. And you can always come back if they do eventually add things you want, and the game is still running. There is nothing wrong with finding greener pastures.

Cillion3117

JJOtterBear wrote: »

ZOS cannot and will never be able to please every player. because that is actually impossible to do. The development of this game has changed direction, and y'all need to just accept that. and if the game is no longer something that pleases you, then yeah, i encourage you to find a game that does.

It's clear that the current state of the game pleases more people. The forums of any game NEVER represent a majority of the playerbase. Most players don't even use the forums. so all this "many players are saying" posts are actually just a minor sliver of the community.

You're all expecting ZOS to cater directly to you, because y'all think you're experts at video games and running a business. A video game studio and dev team are always going to do what pleases the larger group. If you no longer find yourself in that group, then you really have 2 options, accept it and interact with the parts of the game you find enjoyable, or find another game where your opinion is the majority.

Like how long are you all going to be at this? And just keep getting mad over and over and over again? because that's what you're signing yourselves up for at this point.

I'm genuinely sorry that ESO no longer caters to your interests. but at the same time, it doesn't have to. all the game has to do is appeal to the larger population. And currently it does. So ZOS has literally no reason to mess with a formula that is currently working for them.

its sometimes a hard pill to swallow to realize that there are going to be times in life where our opinions just don't matter.

You owe no fealty to this game. Or the devs. Plus, ES6 is coming. And you can always come back if they do eventually add things you want, and the game is still running. There is nothing wrong with finding greener pastures.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.