800k people don't seem to mind difficult overworld

DarcyMardin

Having re-started several times on new account with no gear and no CP (I have multiple accounts), I find that the overland is not all *that* easy for new players. Particularly for new players, who, unlike me, haven’t been playing ESO since beta. It’s a huge and initially rather confusing game. There’s a lot to learn before things start getting easy. As long as ESO still gets a lot of new players trying it out, it makes sense to keep the overland difficulty low.

Frustrating to experienced players with lots of CP, I agree. I’d love a difficulty slider myself, but I’m a seasoned old timer, and it’s clear, even from reading the forums, that a lot of folks are newer to this game than I am.

It *is* kinda fun to find myself fighting back madly to avoid being stomped by a boar in NW and tiptoeing thru zones that are higher leveled than I am so I don’t get one-shotted. I remember when ESO was like that and it did have a certain appeal. OTOH, I make a lot of alts, and I also love being able to zone thru zones collecting skyshards in ESO and knocking off a fast, easy quest line for the skill point I know it’ll earn me (ditto with soloing easy dungeons and the group delve “group events.” The more quick skill points, the more skills I can purchase for my builds. So I can sorta see both sides of this debate.

BTW, on the servers I’ve tried (two) in NW, queues are gone and there’s a noticeable lack of new low level players. Yeah, they had a huge launch, but I am not seeing a steady roll of incoming newbies. Too early to tell, of course, but the game already seems top-heavy. You can’t make alts unless you make them on another server in a different server group, which I suspect is a PvP related thing, but certainly isn’t much fun for an altaholic PvEer like myself. I’m very glad that I’m still playing our much more complex and story-driven ESO.

SilverBride

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

That is a misquote. I didn't say that. @Facefister said that in post #692.

My apologies I have edited the post. These quotes are difficult to follow.

No problem. This isn't the first time it's happened to me.

AlexanderDeLarge

I guess I just don't understand why everyone is so invested in keeping veteran overland players in their normal overland. Personally I wouldn't want people playing a mode they don't particularly enjoy just to inflate the population size. This is one of the most popular games on the planet and it's all one big shared overland split between two global servers on each platform.

You could easily split that population 70/30 and you'd have as much activity in your world phase as you do today. If population is such a concern, time to start investigating cross play as a serious consideration.

Iccotak

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

I hardly see anyone care at all about the main story. There’s always this mentality of “let’s just get this over with”

Almost all of the complaints I have seen about Blackwood and Greymoor's story was that they were boring storylines. People even discussed at great length the gender ratio of the quest npcs in Greymoor. Like plenty of players that I know were endgame discussing whether or not it was too female-centric.

Those are not people just getting it over with. Those are people invested in the story.

But you don't need to take my word for it, Rich Lambert also sees that the vast majority of players are engaged with the story using player metrics.

You go to places where people complain and hang out with like-minded people, you may get a false impression that the majority doesn't like something. I do the same thing. But we don't have to wonder which is objectively true.

The majority of what people do in this game is the story. It's the vast majority that like it. And only a tiny but vocal minority that don't. You're in that group, as confirmed by the devs themselves who have the data for the entire playerbase and not just the ones being vocal.

Yeah I’ve seen those threads complaining about the story. Part of it was complaining about the quality of the writing.
Another big part of it was complaining that the gameplay for that story was just not fun.

Parasaurolophus

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

I think a separate instance is the best deal. And I have already explained why this does not divide the players.

And you are wrong. A separate instance would divide players, by it's very nature.

Sorry, but I don't seem to understand you.

Let's say you have 10 players, and they are all playing in One World.

1 world has 10 players.

Now let's say that a new world is opened in additon to the one world. Now there are two worlds. 4 of those players leave to join this new world, and 6 choose to stay on the old one.

1 world has 6 players, the second world has 4 players.

You've divided those players.

The only way a new instance wouldn't divide the players is if nobody used it. That's just inherent to having multiple instances seeing actual use. Some part of the whole will be in each one.

It's inherent to the concept.

I told you how the mirror system works, why are you ignoring it?

SilverBride

There is one thing I am confused about.

You can only play the story quests once per character. So once someone has created a character then completed the storyline quests in all the zones, they won't be doing them again unless they always make another new character when they finish with the previous one.

Fighting a "boring" mob who is standing next to a resource you want to harvest isn't going to have any effect on the story or immersion once the storyline quests are completed.

spartaxoxo

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

See this is what I don't understand, you're basically taking the stance that ZOS knows all and knows best and you're telling us to come up with studies and data that we don't have access to and you know that so we can't even engage in discourse or discussion on the subject.

I am not asking you to provide any data. I am asking you accept that the developers have given us statements of facts that none of us are in any position to contradict. They are the closest we have to an objective truth. And suggestions are much more likely to be implemented if they don't ignore the reality the devs laid out.

I strongly believe we are more likely to get something more fun if we make suggestions that the devs haven't already rejected for not being economically viable. I see no point in endless debate on an impossible ideal form and instead would prefer to discuss realistic compromises.

The devs have stated the following:

Vet Overland is impossible, and ideas that split the playerbase is not good because they consider that experiment tried and failed. Whether you agree that experiment should be relevant or not, they have stated they won't try something that splits players like that again because their business is more successful than ever after they abandoned it.

The idea cannot take a lot of manpower and resources

The know that the vast majority of the playerbase currently enjoy the story.

CP5

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

I think a separate instance is the best deal. And I have already explained why this does not divide the players.

And you are wrong. A separate instance would divide players, by it's very nature.

Sorry, but I don't seem to understand you.

Let's say you have 10 players, and they are all playing in One World.

1 world has 10 players.

Now let's say that a new world is opened in additon to the one world. Now there are two worlds. 4 of those players leave to join this new world, and 6 choose to stay on the old one.

1 world has 6 players, the second world has 4 players.

You've divided those players.

The only way a new instance wouldn't divide the players is if nobody used it. That's just inherent to having multiple instances seeing actual use. Some part of the whole will be in each one.

It's inherent to the concept.

I told you how the mirror system works, why are you ignoring it?

I don't think many players understand that most popular zones are already broken into many instances, and if vet players were pooled together into a small number of them, the remaining players would still maintain multiple populated versions. Same as how some players don't understand how risk in a fight makes it more enjoyable to overcome for others, rather than just easily clearing content.

trackdemon5512

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

End game players have historically never been the majority in any MMO. If you have numbers to support this, please present them.

I didn't say they were, I said that the majority of endgame players exceed CP300 which I'm pretty sure can be substantiated in any zone by simply looking around.

Facefister wrote: »

Except you dish out higher and better rewards from a "vet" Overland, but I don't see that happening either since people will complain about that.

Why would anyone complain about better rewards in vet overland? You get better rewards in vet dungeons and trials so why would this be any different? I'm not arguing people won't complain, people complain about anything but that's a ridiculous reason to not implement something.

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't deny that Rich Lambert said what you quoted. He also mentioned in the Twitch stream that I linked, that ESO was made with difficulty in mind and that he himself likes difficulty, but that wasn't what a huge portion of the playerbase wanted. The 2/3 of the game that made up Silver and Gold were not being played so they changed it.

I've said it a million times before but I can't reiterate it enough, Silver and Gold aren't representative of the state of the game today. Silver and Gold were in use before the Champion Point system's power creep and the base game's content is boring. Craglorn, a group mandatory zone, was introduced when basic things like grouping and quest phasing were broken.

This is a ridiculously out of date anecdote that does nothing to invalidate the extremely recurrent request of a veteran overland seven years later.

And yet Rich brought it up, a few weeks ago in 2021. He’s not talking out of his a** and knows exactly what he’s referring to, why it’s relevant to people asking today for increased difficulty, and why despite those pleas it hasn’t happened and for the foreseeable future won’t. If Rich referenced it then it’s still on point, he has the data to understand why and insight forecasts from the data analysts to make such an informed decision.

Parasaurolophus

SilverBride wrote: »

There is one thing I am confused about.

You can only play the story quests once per character. So once someone has created a character then completed the storyline quests in all the zones, they won't be doing them again unless they always make another new character when they finish with the previous one.

Fighting a "boring" mob who is standing next to a resource you want to harvest isn't going to have any effect on the story or immersion once the storyline quests are completed.

I agree with you. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to reconsider the approach to creating new locations. We need more content, different activities and interesting rewards. So that the new chapter does not burn out as quickly as now.

spartaxoxo

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

I think a separate instance is the best deal. And I have already explained why this does not divide the players.

And you are wrong. A separate instance would divide players, by it's very nature.

Sorry, but I don't seem to understand you.

Let's say you have 10 players, and they are all playing in One World.

1 world has 10 players.

Now let's say that a new world is opened in additon to the one world. Now there are two worlds. 4 of those players leave to join this new world, and 6 choose to stay on the old one.

1 world has 6 players, the second world has 4 players.

You've divided those players.

The only way a new instance wouldn't divide the players is if nobody used it. That's just inherent to having multiple instances seeing actual use. Some part of the whole will be in each one.

It's inherent to the concept.

I told you how the mirror system works, why are you ignoring it?

I understand that, but adding more instances still further divides players.

CP5

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

I think a separate instance is the best deal. And I have already explained why this does not divide the players.

And you are wrong. A separate instance would divide players, by it's very nature.

Sorry, but I don't seem to understand you.

Let's say you have 10 players, and they are all playing in One World.

1 world has 10 players.

Now let's say that a new world is opened in additon to the one world. Now there are two worlds. 4 of those players leave to join this new world, and 6 choose to stay on the old one.

1 world has 6 players, the second world has 4 players.

You've divided those players.

The only way a new instance wouldn't divide the players is if nobody used it. That's just inherent to having multiple instances seeing actual use. Some part of the whole will be in each one.

It's inherent to the concept.

I told you how the mirror system works, why are you ignoring it?

I understand that, but adding more instances still further divides players.

Zones already have multiple instances. That's why if you group with someone, sometimes their group icon will be floating in midair when you head to where they are on the map, happens all the time when giving bites or what not. The only zones with 1 instance are the ones that are dead already, which won't have much of an impact, if anything the vet version would be more popular.

Parasaurolophus

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

I think a separate instance is the best deal. And I have already explained why this does not divide the players.

And you are wrong. A separate instance would divide players, by it's very nature.

Sorry, but I don't seem to understand you.

Let's say you have 10 players, and they are all playing in One World.

1 world has 10 players.

Now let's say that a new world is opened in additon to the one world. Now there are two worlds. 4 of those players leave to join this new world, and 6 choose to stay on the old one.

1 world has 6 players, the second world has 4 players.

You've divided those players.

The only way a new instance wouldn't divide the players is if nobody used it. That's just inherent to having multiple instances seeing actual use. Some part of the whole will be in each one.

It's inherent to the concept.

I told you how the mirror system works, why are you ignoring it?

I understand that, but adding more instances still further divides players.

How?

spartaxoxo

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

I think a separate instance is the best deal. And I have already explained why this does not divide the players.

And you are wrong. A separate instance would divide players, by it's very nature.

Sorry, but I don't seem to understand you.

Let's say you have 10 players, and they are all playing in One World.

1 world has 10 players.

Now let's say that a new world is opened in additon to the one world. Now there are two worlds. 4 of those players leave to join this new world, and 6 choose to stay on the old one.

1 world has 6 players, the second world has 4 players.

You've divided those players.

The only way a new instance wouldn't divide the players is if nobody used it. That's just inherent to having multiple instances seeing actual use. Some part of the whole will be in each one.

It's inherent to the concept.

I told you how the mirror system works, why are you ignoring it?

I understand that, but adding more instances still further divides players.

How?

If there are 4 instances and now there are 5 instances, whoever is in that 5th instance is not in any of the other 4. Every instance you adds further division.

AlexanderDeLarge

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

And yet Rich brought it up, a few weeks ago in 2021. He’s not talking out of his a** and knows exactly what he’s referring to, why it’s relevant to people asking today for increased difficulty, and why despite those pleas it hasn’t happened and for the foreseeable future won’t. If Rich referenced it then it’s still on point, he has the data to understand why and insight forecasts from the data analysts to make such an informed decision.

With all due respect to Rich Lambert, I have broken down his argument from that twitch clip point by point numerous times, many of those key points are literally in the post you quoted after I've had to repeat myself numerous times and if you choose to ignore that, you're posting in bad faith and it's impossible to continue operating in a thread like this. His anecdote is from seven years ago, prior to the One Tamriel overhaul, prior to five chapters and ten plus zone DLCs and the Champion Point system itself which is the largest contributor to the power creep we see today is beyond irrelevant and it's ridiculous that anyone is taking such a poor attempt at deflection coming from the studio lead seriously.

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

Zones already have multiple instances. That's why if you group with someone, sometimes their group icon will be floating in midair when you head to where they are on the map, happens all the time when giving bites or what not. The only zones with 1 instance are the ones that are dead already, which won't have much of an impact, if anything the vet version would be more popular.

There is a huge difference between the instances in a megaserver, the number of which changes to accommodate the number of players on at one time, and a completely different server, which is what a veteran overland would be.

spartaxoxo

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

And yet Rich brought it up, a few weeks ago in 2021. He’s not talking out of his a** and knows exactly what he’s referring to, why it’s relevant to people asking today for increased difficulty, and why despite those pleas it hasn’t happened and for the foreseeable future won’t. If Rich referenced it then it’s still on point, he has the data to understand why and insight forecasts from the data analysts to make such an informed decision.

With all due respect to Rich Lambert, I have broken down his argument from that twitch clip point by point numerous times, many of those key points are literally in the post you quoted after I've had to repeat myself numerous times and if you choose to ignore that, you're posting in bad faith and it's impossible to continue operating in a thread like this. His anecdote is from seven years ago, prior to the One Tamriel overhaul, prior to five chapters and ten plus zone DLCs and the Champion Point system itself which is the largest contributor to the power creep we see today is beyond irrelevant and it's ridiculous that anyone is taking such a poor attempt at deflection coming from the studio lead seriously.

It's Zenimax's product, so their opinion on it's relevancy is the only one that matters. They won't try it again. It's a hard no.

Parasaurolophus

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

End game players have historically never been the majority in any MMO. If you have numbers to support this, please present them.

I didn't say they were, I said that the majority of endgame players exceed CP300 which I'm pretty sure can be substantiated in any zone by simply looking around.

Facefister wrote: »

Except you dish out higher and better rewards from a "vet" Overland, but I don't see that happening either since people will complain about that.

Why would anyone complain about better rewards in vet overland? You get better rewards in vet dungeons and trials so why would this be any different? I'm not arguing people won't complain, people complain about anything but that's a ridiculous reason to not implement something.

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't deny that Rich Lambert said what you quoted. He also mentioned in the Twitch stream that I linked, that ESO was made with difficulty in mind and that he himself likes difficulty, but that wasn't what a huge portion of the playerbase wanted. The 2/3 of the game that made up Silver and Gold were not being played so they changed it.

I've said it a million times before but I can't reiterate it enough, Silver and Gold aren't representative of the state of the game today. Silver and Gold were in use before the Champion Point system's power creep and the base game's content is boring. Craglorn, a group mandatory zone, was introduced when basic things like grouping and quest phasing were broken.

This is a ridiculously out of date anecdote that does nothing to invalidate the extremely recurrent request of a veteran overland seven years later.

And yet Rich brought it up, a few weeks ago in 2021. He’s not talking out of his a** and knows exactly what he’s referring to, why it’s relevant to people asking today for increased difficulty, and why despite those pleas it hasn’t happened and for the foreseeable future won’t. If Rich referenced it then it’s still on point, he has the data to understand why and insight forecasts from the data analysts to make such an informed decision.

I am very interested then, what analysts can say about the dungeon storymode? What analysts have to say about furniture slots? There are many problems in this game. The fact that many players are completing quest content does not mean that all players are satisfied. Eso had no competition for a long time. Eso is the only actual game in the universe of the scrolls today

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

Zones already have multiple instances. That's why if you group with someone, sometimes their group icon will be floating in midair when you head to where they are on the map, happens all the time when giving bites or what not. The only zones with 1 instance are the ones that are dead already, which won't have much of an impact, if anything the vet version would be more popular.

There is a huge difference between the instances in a megaserver, the number of which changes to accommodate the number of players on at one time, and a completely different server, which is what a veteran overland would be.

Yup. They could combine all normal ones if they needed to, to keep the population interacting. They cannot if they aren't the same type of instance. They can't toss the vet people into normal or vice-versa during low population times. They can combine two normals

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

Zones already have multiple instances. That's why if you group with someone, sometimes their group icon will be floating in midair when you head to where they are on the map, happens all the time when giving bites or what not. The only zones with 1 instance are the ones that are dead already, which won't have much of an impact, if anything the vet version would be more popular.

There is a huge difference between the instances in a megaserver, the number of which changes to accommodate the number of players on at one time, and a completely different server, which is what a veteran overland would be.

It would be a different instance, just like literally every instance of every dungeon or trial. Like every different instance of Cyrodiil or Imperial City. Like every different instance of a players house. There are only 2 servers per platform, NA and EU. Different instances can have different rule sets, this is something ZOS does almost everywhere, and overland zones are already instanced several times over.

Parasaurolophus

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

I think a separate instance is the best deal. And I have already explained why this does not divide the players.

And you are wrong. A separate instance would divide players, by it's very nature.

Sorry, but I don't seem to understand you.

Let's say you have 10 players, and they are all playing in One World.

1 world has 10 players.

Now let's say that a new world is opened in additon to the one world. Now there are two worlds. 4 of those players leave to join this new world, and 6 choose to stay on the old one.

1 world has 6 players, the second world has 4 players.

You've divided those players.

The only way a new instance wouldn't divide the players is if nobody used it. That's just inherent to having multiple instances seeing actual use. Some part of the whole will be in each one.

It's inherent to the concept.

I told you how the mirror system works, why are you ignoring it?

I understand that, but adding more instances still further divides players.

How?

If there are 4 instances and now there are 5 instances, whoever is in that 5th instance is not in any of the other 4. Every instance you adds further division.

No, it is not so. We have a location where players go. We fill one instance, then the game creates another. Even if the instance is prepared in advance, it will simply become a veteran part. In any case, you cannot have more than a certain number of players in one mirror.

AlexanderDeLarge

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It's Zenimax's product, so their opinion on it's relevancy is the only one that matters. They won't try it again. It's a hard no.

Might as well shut the forums down if this is what every thread eventually devolves into.

spartaxoxo

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

I think a separate instance is the best deal. And I have already explained why this does not divide the players.

And you are wrong. A separate instance would divide players, by it's very nature.

Sorry, but I don't seem to understand you.

Let's say you have 10 players, and they are all playing in One World.

1 world has 10 players.

Now let's say that a new world is opened in additon to the one world. Now there are two worlds. 4 of those players leave to join this new world, and 6 choose to stay on the old one.

1 world has 6 players, the second world has 4 players.

You've divided those players.

The only way a new instance wouldn't divide the players is if nobody used it. That's just inherent to having multiple instances seeing actual use. Some part of the whole will be in each one.

It's inherent to the concept.

I told you how the mirror system works, why are you ignoring it?

I understand that, but adding more instances still further divides players.

How?

If there are 4 instances and now there are 5 instances, whoever is in that 5th instance is not in any of the other 4. Every instance you adds further division.

No, it is not so. We have a location where players go. We fill one instance, then the game creates another. Even if the instance is prepared in advance, it will simply become a veteran part. In any case, you cannot have more than a certain number of players in one mirror.

Yes. It is so.

If you have 4 normal instances and then 1 vet instance. Then let's say zos wants more people interacting. They can combine the 4 normals into 1 normal instance. But they cannot change the vet instance into a normal instance. They can no longer have 1 instance if that's what is needed. They must always have at least 2.

The more parts you separate a group into, the greater the division. Simple as that.

You're better off arguing that the divison doesn't matter like cp5 than denying it would exist at all. That's obviously false.

trackdemon5512

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

There is one thing I am confused about.

You can only play the story quests once per character. So once someone has created a character then completed the storyline quests in all the zones, they won't be doing them again unless they always make another new character when they finish with the previous one.

Fighting a "boring" mob who is standing next to a resource you want to harvest isn't going to have any effect on the story or immersion once the storyline quests are completed.

I agree with you. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to reconsider the approach to creating new locations. We need more content, different activities and interesting rewards. So that the new chapter does not burn out as quickly as now.

Except there are serious constraints towards the amount of content that can be developed and the costs involved. Right now ESO gets A LOT of content each year. Two overland zones, about 50+ sets, combat tweaks, housing, premium content, four dungeons, one to two trials/arenas, cosmetics, enemy design, and building over the engine so that content can continue to function.

And the thing is it works for the game. It keeps players for the most part interested, draws new players in, and pays the bills. It’s an extreme risk to veer from a now established formula that took several years to get right. Contrast that with a game like Destiny 2 that in recent years has taken big swings with regards to content releases and still takes critical hits from its player base.

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

It would be a different instance, just like literally every instance of every dungeon or trial. Like every different instance of Cyrodiil or Imperial City. Like every different instance of a players house. There are only 2 servers per platform, NA and EU. Different instances can have different rule sets, this is something ZOS does almost everywhere, and overland zones are already instanced several times over.

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

No, it is not so. We have a location where players go. We fill one instance, then the game creates another. Even if the instance is prepared in advance, it will simply become a veteran part.

That is not how it works.

Instances of the zones are basically copies of the zone exactly as it is. If a lot of players log in and the population surpasses the number of players one instance can accommodate then another instance of that same exact zone is created.

You cannot turn a normal overland instance into a veteran overland instance because they are completely different versions of that zone.

kargen27

CP5 wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

I think a separate instance is the best deal. And I have already explained why this does not divide the players.

And you are wrong. A separate instance would divide players, by it's very nature.

Sorry, but I don't seem to understand you.

Let's say you have 10 players, and they are all playing in One World.

1 world has 10 players.

Now let's say that a new world is opened in additon to the one world. Now there are two worlds. 4 of those players leave to join this new world, and 6 choose to stay on the old one.

1 world has 6 players, the second world has 4 players.

You've divided those players.

The only way a new instance wouldn't divide the players is if nobody used it. That's just inherent to having multiple instances seeing actual use. Some part of the whole will be in each one.

It's inherent to the concept.

I told you how the mirror system works, why are you ignoring it?

I don't think many players understand that most popular zones are already broken into many instances, and if vet players were pooled together into a small number of them, the remaining players would still maintain multiple populated versions. Same as how some players don't understand how risk in a fight makes it more enjoyable to overcome for others, rather than just easily clearing content.

No we understand. We also consider what will happen to zones that are not so populated. I've seen the you do not understand argument used many times in this thread. It isn't that we do not understand. It is that we have a different opinion. A popular zone getting another instance doesn't hurt much. That is why you only reference what would happen in a popular zone. It does get in the way some when trying to find a pug for trials but that is a different issue. In some zones if the idea of a vet instance is popular (and I still think it would be a dismal failure within a month) then it will have a significant impact on those zones. Zones by the way you are more apt to find players needing or wanting help. You never mention what a vet instance will do to the less populated zones because they do not support your idea. I am considering all zones not just the popular few.

We also understand how more risk can make fights more interesting. I have not seen one player argue against that. Not one. Some have said the stories are interesting because of the stories and that is as close as it comes to anyone saying more risk doesn't make it more enjoyable. That has nothing to do with the fights though and just the story. We understand. We also understand that overland for most people isn't a place people go for those types of encounters. It simply isn't. It is a stepping stone to those fights. We also understand why ZoS is reluctant to divide the population by creating a vet level overland. Because we disagree with you doesn't mean we don't understand what is happening or what is being said.

Some of us that oppose the idea do so even though we would like overland content that gave us a better fight. We oppose the idea because we feel it wouldn't be good for the game and wouldn't be utilized enough to make it worth the developers time to put in place.
And nobody for the idea has addressed the question of how hard do you make it. The way I see it no matter the level some will say it is to hard and some will say it isn't hard enough. So where is the sweet spot? And how do you balance the rewards so that players go but players do not feel compelled to go just for the rewards? Answering those questions isn't important really now because vet overland isn't happening but they are questions ZoS would need to answer before moving forward. Even if it were not bad for the game I don't see how it could be worth the resources and time it would take to create an entire new level for each existing zone.

Parasaurolophus

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

I think a separate instance is the best deal. And I have already explained why this does not divide the players.

And you are wrong. A separate instance would divide players, by it's very nature.

Sorry, but I don't seem to understand you.

Let's say you have 10 players, and they are all playing in One World.

1 world has 10 players.

Now let's say that a new world is opened in additon to the one world. Now there are two worlds. 4 of those players leave to join this new world, and 6 choose to stay on the old one.

1 world has 6 players, the second world has 4 players.

You've divided those players.

The only way a new instance wouldn't divide the players is if nobody used it. That's just inherent to having multiple instances seeing actual use. Some part of the whole will be in each one.

It's inherent to the concept.

I told you how the mirror system works, why are you ignoring it?

I understand that, but adding more instances still further divides players.

How?

If there are 4 instances and now there are 5 instances, whoever is in that 5th instance is not in any of the other 4. Every instance you adds further division.

No, it is not so. We have a location where players go. We fill one instance, then the game creates another. Even if the instance is prepared in advance, it will simply become a veteran part. In any case, you cannot have more than a certain number of players in one mirror.

Yes. It is so.

If you have 4 normal instances and then 1 vet instance. Then let's say zos wants more people interacting. They can combine the 4 normals into 1 normal instance. But they cannot change the vet instance into a normal instance. They can no longer have 1 instance if that's what is needed. They must always have at least 2.

The more parts you separate a group into, the greater the division. Simple as that.

You're better off arguing that the divison doesn't matter like cp5 than denying it would exist at all. That's obviously false.

If at one location there are not enough people to fill at least one mirror, then this is very bad, I think. Besides, I still don't understand how much damage this can cause to the player base? As I already wrote, new locations burn out very quickly for high-end players. You literally demand that high-end players play in the "starting zone".

AlexanderDeLarge

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Except there are serious constraints towards the amount of content that can be developed and the costs involved. Right now ESO gets A LOT of content each year. Two overland zones, about 50+ sets, combat tweaks, housing, premium content, four dungeons, one to two trials/arenas, cosmetics, enemy design, and building over the engine so that content can continue to function.

And the thing is it works for the game. It keeps players for the most part interested, draws new players in, and pays the bills. It’s an extreme risk to veer from a now established formula that took several years to get right. Contrast that with a game like Destiny 2 that in recent years has taken big swings with regards to content releases and still takes critical hits from its player base.

It doesn't need to be some major effort requiring a very hands on rebalancing of every single bit of content in the game like you're suggesting. We just need a veteran toggle that sorts players between separate phasings for each zone and plain value multipliers such as XP gain, gold and loot drops. Look at the Steel Path system in Warframe, it's a flat +100 level multiplier and it makes all the difference where now players are forced to engage with mechanics when otherwise we'd rip and tear through enemies Dynasty Warriors-style.

Hard Mode/Steel Path Impressions

spartaxoxo

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It's Zenimax's product, so their opinion on it's relevancy is the only one that matters. They won't try it again. It's a hard no.

Might as well shut the forums down if this is what every thread eventually devolves into.

No. Not really. There is still plenty of things we can do within the parameters of what is feasible.

Like for example, a common request in the housing forums was more slots for furnishings. Zenimax did a large post about why that was a technical impossibility at this time, literally they cannot do it. Some people refused to accept that answer and continued asking for more slots. And some people came up with new solutions to help make things better such as more structural furnishings to close things off, more large house items, more items that involve multiple pieces as one piece such as more varieties of filled bookcases, more platters of food so you didn't have to spend 6 slots to make dinner on a plate, etc.

Zos ignored the people asking for more slots because they can't do that.

Zos listened to the people who wanted furnishings that took more space, and as a result the ability to fully decorate a house greatly improved.

Is it as good as if we had more slots? Ofc not. But it's better than it was before because of people willing to work within the parameters of what ZOS is willing to do when they made suggestions.

I think there's a lot of people in this thread letting the perfect idea (vet overland) be the enemy of good ideas that they may be more open to doing.

spartaxoxo

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Besides, I still don't understand how much damage this can cause to the player base? As I already wrote, new locations burn out very quickly for high-end players. You literally demand that high-end players play in the "starting zone".

Yes. Because there needs to be points of interaction between new players and endgame players. This gets the new player making friends and joining guilds and sticking with this game. Then when an old player leaves because no matter how good the game is, people eventually burn out. The new player they helped takes their place as the established player and helps other new players. If the old player decides to come back, their old friend is there to greet them and they may stay around.

This cycle of players is critical to this game's success. If a game only cares about it's established players, it can become too top heavy and daunting to new players. And then the game dies because new ones don't replace the old ones when they leave.

This is why a game needs ways to get those players to play together outside of just establishing relationships. And for ESO, that thing is overland.