800k people don't seem to mind difficult overworld

AlexanderDeLarge

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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

The difference between the two are literally a ruleset change with flat modifiers and a single field that assigns the player to the respective phase desired by the player just like dungeons/trials/arenas function now.
[overland="normal"]
or
[overland="veteran"]

Beyond that they should easily be able to continue dynamically handling world phases as the game functions now. Why are you making this out to be some huge thing as if they'd have to open up an entire megaserver worth of infrastructure dedicated to veteran overland phasing? It's literally the same sorting system that exists for arenas, dungeon and trial content.

spartaxoxo

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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

The difference between the two are literally a ruleset change with flat modifiers and a single field that assigns the player to the respective phase desired by the player just like dungeons/trials/arenas function now.
[overland="normal"]
or
[overland="veteran"]

Beyond that they should easily be able to continue dynamically handling world phases as the game functions now. Why are you making this out to be some huge thing as if they'd have to open up an entire megaserver worth of infrastructure dedicated to veteran overland phasing? It's literally the same sorting system that exists for arenas, dungeon and trial content.

I didn't say anything about a megaserver. They would be in separate instances and you can't combine the two because those players chose different rulesets. Therefore they wouldn't be interacting. They'd literally be split.

AlexanderDeLarge

[snip] We've been gaslit for the last five years being told that only a vocal minority wants this, then we're told to hang out in instanced content where we'd literally never interact with anyone outside of our groups, to stop playing the game if we're unhappy and now we're being told that we shouldn't get veteran overland because it'd significantly split the population.

If we listened to the naysayers on this subject, the population is already split so what's the difference?

[edited for baiting]

Parasaurolophus

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

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.

All of the things that you have listed are being handled by completely different teams. And not 50 sets are released every year.
The point is, excuses don't work. When the rushers do not allow the new player to read the quests in the dungeon, no notification appears anywhere on the screen with quotes from the forum that players just want to quickly farm crystals. Nowhere in the game does it say that it is not profitable for developers to create a special mode for the story in dungeons. His experience remains ruined and the player is upset.
When a player wants to select a mode on BG`s, nowhere appears an inscription that BGs are not working as expected by the developers and now they are experimenting. Experience remains ruined.
When I destroyed Summerset's last boss at the top of the Crystal Tower in 6 seconds, it was not written anywhere in the game that the content was for the kazul and not for you. My experience was ruined.
I understand that this is a business. I understand that yes, the game works this way and makes a profit. However, this does not mean at all that all players are happy. A striking example is pvp. The most popular and successful games are pvp games. But ZoS is not able to cope with pvp and therefore just decided not to risk it. Does this mean that for a good game you need to destroy pvp?
The only explanation we can get is not that developing new content is expensive and difficult. This is what, most likely, economy and frugality is the main policy of the game development. But I hope this is not the case.

spartaxoxo

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

[snip] We've been gaslit for the last five years being told that only a vocal minority wants this, then we're told to hang out in instanced content where we'd literally never interact with anyone outside of our groups, to stop playing the game if we're unhappy and now we're being told that we shouldn't get veteran overland because it'd significantly split the population.

If we listened to the naysayers on this subject, the population is already split so what's the difference?

And what numbers do you have to backup that you've been "gaslit" about the vast majority enjoying the story content as is?

Like nobody's trolling you, we just don't agree.

[edited to remove quote]

Amottica

Iccotak wrote: »

Blood_again wrote: »

Maya_Nur wrote: »

1. Humans psychologically need a sense of progression, a feeling of growing (that's why RPGs have leveling systems at all) so self-debuff is like God pretending human, while toggle mod is more like a God went for a challenge. By the way, increasing mob's stats won't work. As CP5 said and others said previously, we need smarter enemies which DESIRE to kill us.
2. Playing with others but with a debuff upon a character just doesn't make sense because low-level characters already have an invisible buff so they can rival an 160CP overland. Making newbies strong and veterans weak is just rediculous.

Toggle also implies (would be nice at least) an oportunity to replay all the quests once again. I have completed zones' stories years ago, but finish them again with another character is not for me. Not only because I like my main, but also because gameplay is not engaging now.

There is an issue with implementing smarter enemies. You literally want to have a new game inside ESO. I'm afraid it's hard to "sell" this idea to ZoS. So we need a compromise. How to make the current overland changes as minimal as possible to make what you accept as "vet"?

Solution with veteran and newcomer is even harder. Please remember that we are taking steps from the current game in current state. Do you really want a challenge in battle with mobs? Or do you want just to feel stronger than newcomer? It is two different directions to move, two ideas to "sell".

Neither, we want general combat to not be boring.

Cannot do Vet Overland? Ok, then implement more interesting enemies that we encounter in open world
Make different types of Tougher NPCs & Mini-Bosses who use varying mechanics. Then sprinkle them throughout the zones for more encounters, Not too much but just enough to spice up the gameplay.

Examples:
Really take a look at enemies with mechanics we see from Mini-Bosses in the story.
Disappointing in the story but they’d better serve in general overland.
Those guys are designed for solo play that anyone can do so just scatter them throughout the zone.

The problem with “Tougher Enemies” today is that they’re too rare in exploration and only their health and damage is buffed.
So they’re still boring because they don’t do anything different and don’t utilize ESO mechanics. They aren’t interesting and therefore not Fun.

However, Mini-bosses like Nathari would be a great base for a “Master Necromancer” overland encounter.

Video 17:47 mark

https://youtu.be/hIZN1mUHTKU

Imagine exploring the wild and encountering a Master Necromancer who summons a Bone Colossus, does a wide ring area affect, and/or possibly transforms into a Lich or Bone Colossus.

Other types they can do
- Bandit Chiefs
- Master Assassin
- Pyromancer
- Cryomancer
- Briar Hearts (they exist but need adjustments)
- Beast Master
- Minotaur Champion
- Werewolf Behemoth (or others)
-

All of which are faster, attack & use abilities more frequently, have more abilities - some of which cover more ground.

Have one of those with a mob every 1 out 5-8 encounters and that changes things up at a reasonable rate without being overdone.

Also the wide variety of different types which would help keep the random encounters more interesting.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I would like to point out that I am just an average player, and the hardest content I do is vet dungeons(non-DLC) and some normal trials, and even I find the overland stupidly easy to the point of frustation, so it must be even worse for high elite players

It's better for many of us who engage in actually difficult content, not worse. One reason I don't mind Overland being easy very much is It's a nice break from harder, more organized content. I don't gotta care about which set I have or focus on not getting one shot, I can just listen to some interesting dialogue and chill. When I get sick of hard content, vet content is there for me. And vice versa.

I think the majority of the people who complain about Vet Overland are the people who refuse to actually challenge themselves with the actually difficult content in this game in favor of playing tutorial content over and over, then complain about the game being too easy. If you've never done something like try to get a vet dlc dungeon skin, go for flawless conqueror, or killed a vet dlc trial boss ofc this game seems too easy. You're purposefully avoiding hard content.

There are definitely some people out there who only do vet content though. I sympathize with them. We need more arenas and such.

There are a wide variety of different players who have agreed that they find Overland lacking.

I myself regularly do Endgame Dungeons, and I’m working on completing the trials.

The problem isn’t “a lack of endgame content“ – the problem is that the current Gameplay in the story, especially the main story, and exploration is largely unenjoyable.

The gameplay in the main story undercuts the narrative to such a degree that it kills immersion and ruins any investment that I might’ve had.
What many have said, including myself, is that the gameplay for contact like the main story needs to be improved and/or have a Veteran toggle - so then it is enjoyable to players besides beginners or those not looking for gameplay to matter.

The gameplay experience affects the quality of the story. Poor and Un-engaging Gameplay makes the story worse

Are you suggesting that if the NPCs merely had more moves/attacks yet they still did not do much damage and are just as easy to kill that players wanting more difficulty would be satisfied? Their "strength would still be the same as it is today so they would still be just as challenging or lack of being a challenge.

trackdemon5512

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

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.

All of the things that you have listed are being handled by completely different teams. And not 50 sets are released every year.
The point is, excuses don't work. When the rushers do not allow the new player to read the quests in the dungeon, no notification appears anywhere on the screen with quotes from the forum that players just want to quickly farm crystals. Nowhere in the game does it say that it is not profitable for developers to create a special mode for the story in dungeons. His experience remains ruined and the player is upset.
When a player wants to select a mode on BG`s, nowhere appears an inscription that BGs are not working as expected by the developers and now they are experimenting. Experience remains ruined.
When I destroyed Summerset's last boss at the top of the Crystal Tower in 6 seconds, it was not written anywhere in the game that the content was for the kazul and not for you. My experience was ruined.
I understand that this is a business. I understand that yes, the game works this way and makes a profit. However, this does not mean at all that all players are happy. A striking example is pvp. The most popular and successful games are pvp games. But ZoS is not able to cope with pvp and therefore just decided not to risk it. Does this mean that for a good game you need to destroy pvp?
The only explanation we can get is not that developing new content is expensive and difficult. This is what, most likely, economy is the main policy of the game development. But I hope this is not the case.

6 craftable, 6 zone sets for the two zones, 4 trial sets, 12 dungeon sets, 4 monster mask sets, 4 to 8 antiquity sets, any additional PvP sets (this year 3 ROTW sets and 3 monster masks). Then you can add additional arena sets (AS, BRP, VH all added 6 weapon sets with VH also adding 3 additional drop sets). Comes out to roughly about 50 sets a year on average now.

spartaxoxo

Amottica wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Blood_again wrote: »

Maya_Nur wrote: »

1. Humans psychologically need a sense of progression, a feeling of growing (that's why RPGs have leveling systems at all) so self-debuff is like God pretending human, while toggle mod is more like a God went for a challenge. By the way, increasing mob's stats won't work. As CP5 said and others said previously, we need smarter enemies which DESIRE to kill us.
2. Playing with others but with a debuff upon a character just doesn't make sense because low-level characters already have an invisible buff so they can rival an 160CP overland. Making newbies strong and veterans weak is just rediculous.

Toggle also implies (would be nice at least) an oportunity to replay all the quests once again. I have completed zones' stories years ago, but finish them again with another character is not for me. Not only because I like my main, but also because gameplay is not engaging now.

There is an issue with implementing smarter enemies. You literally want to have a new game inside ESO. I'm afraid it's hard to "sell" this idea to ZoS. So we need a compromise. How to make the current overland changes as minimal as possible to make what you accept as "vet"?

Solution with veteran and newcomer is even harder. Please remember that we are taking steps from the current game in current state. Do you really want a challenge in battle with mobs? Or do you want just to feel stronger than newcomer? It is two different directions to move, two ideas to "sell".

Neither, we want general combat to not be boring.

Cannot do Vet Overland? Ok, then implement more interesting enemies that we encounter in open world
Make different types of Tougher NPCs & Mini-Bosses who use varying mechanics. Then sprinkle them throughout the zones for more encounters, Not too much but just enough to spice up the gameplay.

Examples:
Really take a look at enemies with mechanics we see from Mini-Bosses in the story.
Disappointing in the story but they’d better serve in general overland.
Those guys are designed for solo play that anyone can do so just scatter them throughout the zone.

The problem with “Tougher Enemies” today is that they’re too rare in exploration and only their health and damage is buffed.
So they’re still boring because they don’t do anything different and don’t utilize ESO mechanics. They aren’t interesting and therefore not Fun.

However, Mini-bosses like Nathari would be a great base for a “Master Necromancer” overland encounter.

Video 17:47 mark

https://youtu.be/hIZN1mUHTKU

Imagine exploring the wild and encountering a Master Necromancer who summons a Bone Colossus, does a wide ring area affect, and/or possibly transforms into a Lich or Bone Colossus.

Other types they can do
- Bandit Chiefs
- Master Assassin
- Pyromancer
- Cryomancer
- Briar Hearts (they exist but need adjustments)
- Beast Master
- Minotaur Champion
- Werewolf Behemoth (or others)
-

All of which are faster, attack & use abilities more frequently, have more abilities - some of which cover more ground.

Have one of those with a mob every 1 out 5-8 encounters and that changes things up at a reasonable rate without being overdone.

Also the wide variety of different types which would help keep the random encounters more interesting.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I would like to point out that I am just an average player, and the hardest content I do is vet dungeons(non-DLC) and some normal trials, and even I find the overland stupidly easy to the point of frustation, so it must be even worse for high elite players

It's better for many of us who engage in actually difficult content, not worse. One reason I don't mind Overland being easy very much is It's a nice break from harder, more organized content. I don't gotta care about which set I have or focus on not getting one shot, I can just listen to some interesting dialogue and chill. When I get sick of hard content, vet content is there for me. And vice versa.

I think the majority of the people who complain about Vet Overland are the people who refuse to actually challenge themselves with the actually difficult content in this game in favor of playing tutorial content over and over, then complain about the game being too easy. If you've never done something like try to get a vet dlc dungeon skin, go for flawless conqueror, or killed a vet dlc trial boss ofc this game seems too easy. You're purposefully avoiding hard content.

There are definitely some people out there who only do vet content though. I sympathize with them. We need more arenas and such.

There are a wide variety of different players who have agreed that they find Overland lacking.

I myself regularly do Endgame Dungeons, and I’m working on completing the trials.

The problem isn’t “a lack of endgame content“ – the problem is that the current Gameplay in the story, especially the main story, and exploration is largely unenjoyable.

The gameplay in the main story undercuts the narrative to such a degree that it kills immersion and ruins any investment that I might’ve had.
What many have said, including myself, is that the gameplay for contact like the main story needs to be improved and/or have a Veteran toggle - so then it is enjoyable to players besides beginners or those not looking for gameplay to matter.

The gameplay experience affects the quality of the story. Poor and Un-engaging Gameplay makes the story worse

Are you suggesting that if the NPCs merely had more moves/attacks yet they still did not do much damage and are just as easy to kill that players wanting more difficulty would be satisfied? Their "strength would still be the same as it is today so they would still be just as challenging or lack of being a challenge.

Yeah. They already do mechs we don't see because they're dead before they can even really talk. What's a couple more of I still wouldn't see it?

I do think the mini-bosses could be tougher though. People don't mind as much asking for help with bosses, so that's probably an area you could increase the difficulty a tad on the existing maps. Iccotak made a good suggestion on that one imo.

Parasaurolophus

kargen27 wrote: »

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.

Obviously, we need to weaken the wb / anchors for the normal version if there is a separation of locations. This is so that casual players feel comfortable.
Again, old players don't return to Auridon, Glenoubra, or the Rift. High-end players complete a new location within one week. After that, the population of the location drops rapidly.
Nobody complains about the difficulty of dungeons and trials. Everyone thinks they're okay. Why can't the difficulty of the overland be balanced to be okay and not look absurd?

Iccotak

Amottica wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Blood_again wrote: »

Maya_Nur wrote: »

1. Humans psychologically need a sense of progression, a feeling of growing (that's why RPGs have leveling systems at all) so self-debuff is like God pretending human, while toggle mod is more like a God went for a challenge. By the way, increasing mob's stats won't work. As CP5 said and others said previously, we need smarter enemies which DESIRE to kill us.
2. Playing with others but with a debuff upon a character just doesn't make sense because low-level characters already have an invisible buff so they can rival an 160CP overland. Making newbies strong and veterans weak is just rediculous.

Toggle also implies (would be nice at least) an oportunity to replay all the quests once again. I have completed zones' stories years ago, but finish them again with another character is not for me. Not only because I like my main, but also because gameplay is not engaging now.

There is an issue with implementing smarter enemies. You literally want to have a new game inside ESO. I'm afraid it's hard to "sell" this idea to ZoS. So we need a compromise. How to make the current overland changes as minimal as possible to make what you accept as "vet"?

Solution with veteran and newcomer is even harder. Please remember that we are taking steps from the current game in current state. Do you really want a challenge in battle with mobs? Or do you want just to feel stronger than newcomer? It is two different directions to move, two ideas to "sell".

Neither, we want general combat to not be boring.

Cannot do Vet Overland? Ok, then implement more interesting enemies that we encounter in open world
Make different types of Tougher NPCs & Mini-Bosses who use varying mechanics. Then sprinkle them throughout the zones for more encounters, Not too much but just enough to spice up the gameplay.

Examples:
Really take a look at enemies with mechanics we see from Mini-Bosses in the story.
Disappointing in the story but they’d better serve in general overland.
Those guys are designed for solo play that anyone can do so just scatter them throughout the zone.

The problem with “Tougher Enemies” today is that they’re too rare in exploration and only their health and damage is buffed.
So they’re still boring because they don’t do anything different and don’t utilize ESO mechanics. They aren’t interesting and therefore not Fun.

However, Mini-bosses like Nathari would be a great base for a “Master Necromancer” overland encounter.

Video 17:47 mark

https://youtu.be/hIZN1mUHTKU

Imagine exploring the wild and encountering a Master Necromancer who summons a Bone Colossus, does a wide ring area affect, and/or possibly transforms into a Lich or Bone Colossus.

Other types they can do
- Bandit Chiefs
- Master Assassin
- Pyromancer
- Cryomancer
- Briar Hearts (they exist but need adjustments)
- Beast Master
- Minotaur Champion
- Werewolf Behemoth (or others)
-

All of which are faster, attack & use abilities more frequently, have more abilities - some of which cover more ground.

Have one of those with a mob every 1 out 5-8 encounters and that changes things up at a reasonable rate without being overdone.

Also the wide variety of different types which would help keep the random encounters more interesting.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I would like to point out that I am just an average player, and the hardest content I do is vet dungeons(non-DLC) and some normal trials, and even I find the overland stupidly easy to the point of frustation, so it must be even worse for high elite players

It's better for many of us who engage in actually difficult content, not worse. One reason I don't mind Overland being easy very much is It's a nice break from harder, more organized content. I don't gotta care about which set I have or focus on not getting one shot, I can just listen to some interesting dialogue and chill. When I get sick of hard content, vet content is there for me. And vice versa.

I think the majority of the people who complain about Vet Overland are the people who refuse to actually challenge themselves with the actually difficult content in this game in favor of playing tutorial content over and over, then complain about the game being too easy. If you've never done something like try to get a vet dlc dungeon skin, go for flawless conqueror, or killed a vet dlc trial boss ofc this game seems too easy. You're purposefully avoiding hard content.

There are definitely some people out there who only do vet content though. I sympathize with them. We need more arenas and such.

There are a wide variety of different players who have agreed that they find Overland lacking.

I myself regularly do Endgame Dungeons, and I’m working on completing the trials.

The problem isn’t “a lack of endgame content“ – the problem is that the current Gameplay in the story, especially the main story, and exploration is largely unenjoyable.

The gameplay in the main story undercuts the narrative to such a degree that it kills immersion and ruins any investment that I might’ve had.
What many have said, including myself, is that the gameplay for contact like the main story needs to be improved and/or have a Veteran toggle - so then it is enjoyable to players besides beginners or those not looking for gameplay to matter.

The gameplay experience affects the quality of the story. Poor and Un-engaging Gameplay makes the story worse

Are you suggesting that if the NPCs merely had more moves/attacks yet they still did not do much damage and are just as easy to kill that players wanting more difficulty would be satisfied? Their "strength would still be the same as it is today so they would still be just as challenging or lack of being a challenge.

It’s not just about “having more moves“ it’s about what those moves do. It’s how they affect the player in it in what ways it pushes the player to do different things.
——————————————————
For example earlier today I did a daily Delve quest.
In the delve I encountered a strangler and a hack wing.

I first gave my attention to the hackwing, but then the strangler pulled me in and then right as I recovered, the hackwing knocked me down.

I recovered again but this time I had to back up and reassess. I had to take note of my surroundings.

They didn’t hit harder than the general Overland mob, but they both engaged me, used their mechanics together in tandem, and at a quick pace.

It put me in a situation where I had to think about what I was doing - and be wary of enemies - which was rare and refreshing.
It made me think; “Why don’t other mobs work together like that?”

Such a small thing from minor enemies but the way their mechanics worked together made me think about what I was doing, which engaged me and made it a little fun.
——————————————————

Again there is this massive misconception and generalization that ”all of us” are asking for overland to be as hard as a DLC Dungeon or Trial. When that isn’t the case at all, what people have been saying is make the gameplay more interesting.
It does not only comes down to stats but also mechanics.

As a first step to addressing this issue, my idea is to implement more tougher enemies that not only have more abilities that cover more area, but also use them more frequently and faster.

To add on to this;
As someone else pointed out, a second step would be to adjust the mobs to stop using abilities that waste time or temporarily disengage them from combat.

kargen27

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

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.

Obviously, we need to weaken the wb / anchors for the normal version if there is a separation of locations. This is so that casual players feel comfortable.
Again, old players don't return to Auridon, Glenoubra, or the Rift. High-end players complete a new location within one week. After that, the population of the location drops rapidly.
Nobody complains about the difficulty of dungeons and trials. Everyone thinks they're okay. Why can't the difficulty of the overland be balanced to be okay and not look absurd?

World bosses and anchors were meant to be a group experience either organized or unorganized. They are where they need to be for what they are suppose to be. Just like overland is where it needs to be for what is is suppose to be. Players do return to all those zones you mention all the time. I would assume some do not but many do. Some do so on new characters. Some do so to farm materials. Some do so looking for items in guild traders they can flip. Some do so just because they think it is pretty and they want to look around again. When I hear high-end players I think those looking to get on leader boards. Trying to cater overland to them isn't a good idea at all. Trying to cater to players doing vet DLC though harder overland also not a good idea. The level simply can't be increased enough to ever give them a good fight without excluding the majority of players. So high-end isn't the target.
Players that PvP may do each zone only once if at all then go back to PvP. That is fine. Players doing progressions may spend little time in the zones after the first run through and that is also fine. They found what they like and harder content in overland probably isn't going to draw them back to overland anyway.
MMOs need new content to survive. They also need content to be repeated. When it comes to overland that is why we have surveys. We have antiquities and psijic portals to entice us to go back to overland zones. We can't repeat the stories on the same character so we have the ability to create new characters. I've been here since early release and I was in Greenshade last night trying to finish up an achievement. I saw a few high level characters run by while I was there.
Dungeons and trials are instanced to the group and that instance goes away when you finish. They are very small compared to an entire zone. A vet difficulty overland instance for every zone would always be there. Even if it was just one person taking advantage of the empty zone farming materials that instance would be open. That takes resources on the server to maintain. If the vet zones became popular that divides the population and that isn't healthy for the game as others have described. If it isn't popular which is my guess then it was a waste of developers time.

kargen27

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

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

Except in overland there really are no mechanics outside of the world bosses. Find a mob and don't fight back. It isn't a matter of them not having the time to do their mechanics. It is they have very few if any and those are predictively repetitive and with the traps just annoying. Just making the mobs harder to kill doesn't really make the fight more interesting. Maybe a bit more interesting but mostly just longer.
If it were just a matter of harder hitting or harder to kill ZoS could give us food and drink to gimp our characters in various ways so the mobs get to do their mechanics.

Darrett

Rather than focusing on the questing content, I’d prefer they revisit some of the earlier world bosses. Add increased mechanics and damage output there, rather than impact the solo and questing content.

I’d also love to see some world events like Warhammer Online’s Public Quests.

I think the key is to focus on only opt-in difficulty, rather than a blanket application.

Iccotak

SilverBride wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

...we want general combat to not be boring.

EDIT: I want to include the following that were also given as reasons, but are all subjective opinions, not facts.

Iccotak wrote: »

There are a wide variety of different players who have agreed that they find Overland lacking...

...the problem is that the current Gameplay in the story, especially the main story, and exploration is largely unenjoyable.

The gameplay in the main story undercuts the narrative to such a degree that it kills immersion and ruins any investment that I might’ve had...

...the gameplay for contact like the main story needs to be improved and/or have a Veteran toggle - so then it is enjoyable to players besides beginners or those not looking for gameplay to matter.

...Poor and Un-engaging Gameplay makes the story worse

1. I’ve been keeping an archive of every time this topic as well as discussions about combat Gameplay come up - I can tell you for a fact that there are a wide variety of different types of players who have made similar criticisms about Overland/Story content.

2 & 3. The gameplay not being fun for the story has been one of the most common complaints about the game. I have found this consistently throughout this community on the forums as well as other platforms.

4 & 5. It is a widely known fact amongst game developers, and is even observable, is if your game largely revolves around Action RPG combat (like ESO does) but the combat itself is boring, unengaging, and overall not fun - then nobody is going to care about your story enough to stick around.

You yourself know this because the gameplay in many parts of ESO back in beta and 2014 was not fun. Which is why you didn’t stick around for a little bit.

gameplay at the time was due to multiple reasons - one of them being the overly mmo-esque unpolished Gameplay that people did not like being in an Elder Scrolls title.

An aspect of the game that is held against still.

If all it came down to being a good game was the story and lore, then ESO should not of had any problem being successful back then. But it did have problems because the gameplay was largely unenjoyable.

We could’ve chalked up feedback back then to just being “subjective“, and dismiss it. But enjoyment of something is largely subjective, and it was the overwhelmingly subjective feedback of the gameplay back that it wasn’t fun. So the developers changed the game due to feedback.

And players in general appreciate many of those changes. What many people have said though is it it could still use some adjustments & fine tuning.

Also, can we please stop acting like the developers know best 100% of the time every time. Developers are human beings, they make mistakes all the time, even when they do things right. I certainly wouldn’t say how they’re handling PVP or the content model for the year long story “is perfect” as it has drawn a lot of criticism - Especially over the past couple of years.

Another Example:
I like that they’re adding the armory system and what that allows me to do with just one character, but I and others also have disagreements with how they’re handling its monetization.

Parasaurolophus

World bosses and anchors were meant to be a group experience either organized or unorganized. They are where they need to be for what they are suppose to be. Just like overland is where it needs to be for what is is suppose to be. Players do return to all those zones you mention all the time. I would assume some do not but many do. Some do so on new characters. Some do so to farm materials. Some do so looking for items in guild traders they can flip. Some do so just because they think it is pretty and they want to look around again. When I hear high-end players I think those looking to get on leader boards. Trying to cater overland to them isn't a good idea at all. Trying to cater to players doing vet DLC though harder overland also not a good idea. The level simply can't be increased enough to ever give them a good fight without excluding the majority of players. So high-end isn't the target.

World bosses anchors are a common argument. But the game is not focused on world bosses and anchors. Much of overland is a solo experience. Therefore, I do not see anything wrong with bosses nerfing for the normal version. Again, all bosses are completed only once, for the sake of achievement. There is no incentive to farm them. Therefore, this is not a big problem. When I create new characters, I just run skyshards along with rifts and do not get distracted by bosses or anything else. And I see no reason that it could be otherwise.

MMOs need new content to survive. They also need content to be repeated. When it comes to overland that is why we have surveys. We have antiquities and psijic portals to entice us to go back to overland zones. We can't repeat the stories on the same character so we have the ability to create new characters. I've been here since early release and I was in Greenshade last night trying to finish up an achievement. I saw a few high level characters run by while I was there.
Dungeons and trials are instanced to the group and that instance goes away when you finish. They are very small compared to an entire zone. A vet difficulty overland instance for every zone would always be there. Even if it was just one person taking advantage of the empty zone farming materials that instance would be open. That takes resources on the server to maintain. If the vet zones became popular that divides the population and that isn't healthy for the game as others have described. If it isn't popular which is my guess then it was a waste of developers time.

Treasure maps and Psijic portals are not what will make you stay in the old location for a long time.
A high-level character does not mean that he is a high-end player. Plus, are you sure he was just walked around the location enjoying the views?

Dungeons and trials are instanced to the group and that instance goes away when you finish. They are very small compared to an entire zone. A vet difficulty overland instance for every zone would always be there. Even if it was just one person taking advantage of the empty zone farming materials that instance would be open. That takes resources on the server to maintain. If the vet zones became popular that divides the population and that isn't healthy for the game as others have described. If it isn't popular which is my guess then it was a waste of developers time.

You are literally telling us that we have to serve the interests of casuals and new players, create the appearance of a population for them, help them beat wb and close anchors.

Parasaurolophus

Honestly ... It's weird to ask for gameplay for a game. It's like asking for wheels for a bike. Some people just like to sit on it and relax. But it's a hell bike!

AlexanderDeLarge

kargen27 wrote: »

Except in overland there really are no mechanics outside of the world bosses. Find a mob and don't fight back. It isn't a matter of them not having the time to do their mechanics. It is they have very few if any and those are predictively repetitive and with the traps just annoying. Just making the mobs harder to kill doesn't really make the fight more interesting. Maybe a bit more interesting but mostly just longer.
If it were just a matter of harder hitting or harder to kill ZoS could give us food and drink to gimp our characters in various ways so the mobs get to do their mechanics.

I guess 'mechanics' are a stretch but assassins have that leap-over-your-shoulder move that we don't see because we instakill them. Animals have charge attacks that you don't see because we instakill them. Netches have the poison AoE attack that you don't see because we instakill them. The debuff would technically work but then we'd have people playing normally killing our mobs and ruining our fun and I'm not really a fan of putting myself at a disadvantage for no reason going back to the suggestion of "just take your equipment off bro".

Separate world phasing is the way to go.

Sylvermynx

The only things I instakill are bugs and such.

Elsonso

Iccotak wrote: »

As a first step to addressing this issue, my idea is to implement more tougher enemies that not only have more abilities that cover more area, but also use them more frequently and faster.

I am wondering if the wandering bosses in Deadlands are the manifestation of ZOS making overland harder. They can be easily avoided by the solitary masses, potentially solo'ed by the elite, and taken down by groups. As a bonus, they are not hidden in some obscure walled off location. I doubt that this first pass will move the bar much, but maybe in future DLCs.

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

The difference between the two are literally a ruleset change with flat modifiers and a single field that assigns the player to the respective phase desired by the player just like dungeons/trials/arenas function now.
[overland="normal"]
or
[overland="veteran"]

Beyond that they should easily be able to continue dynamically handling world phases as the game functions now. Why are you making this out to be some huge thing as if they'd have to open up an entire megaserver worth of infrastructure dedicated to veteran overland phasing? It's literally the same sorting system that exists for arenas, dungeon and trial content.

So, that is not how the game currently works, as I understand it. The veteran and normal versions of the dungeon are different maps of the same dungeon. I am not certain how Hard Mode works, but since Rich said that they do not dynamically do mob scaling, it is probably a separate map from the veteran version of that room. A separate map allows them to make more changes than just scaling the mobs between difficulty levels.

I am sure that does not prevent them from dynamically doing that, but my understanding is that they currently do not do that. Either way, it really does sound like a "huge thing". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

SilverBride

Iccotak wrote: »

There are a wide variety of different players who have agreed that they find Overland lacking...

...if your game largely revolves around Action RPG combat (like ESO does) but the combat itself is boring, unengaging, and overall not fun - then nobody is going to care about your story enough to stick around.

We have already established that the forums are not an accurate representation of the playerbase as a whole because only a very small percentage of players ever read or post. But of those who do, there are many who enjoy overland just as it is.

We have also established that a lot of players are sticking around, because as Rich Lambert pointed out ESO is doing better now than it ever has.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

There are a wide variety of different players who have agreed that they find Overland lacking...

...if your game largely revolves around Action RPG combat (like ESO does) but the combat itself is boring, unengaging, and overall not fun - then nobody is going to care about your story enough to stick around.

We have already established that the forums are not an accurate representation of the playerbase as a whole because only a very small percentage of players ever read or post. But of those who do, there are many who enjoy overland just as it is.

We have also established that a lot of players are sticking around, because as Rich Lambert pointed out ESO is doing better now than it ever has.

You're only allowed to acknowledge that's true but not the inverse. That if an rpg is largely growing each year (and eso has grown every year since One Tamriel) then people are mostly happy with their experience. This year it might dip a bit due to the loss of some players who only joined because of quarantine and pvpers to new world, but the trajectory of this game since One Tamriel is largely up.

Vast majority enjoys the story, devs own words. That's what most players are up to. Hard to argue it's bad when that's the case. Now the PVP scene, that's in bad shape.

Amottica

Iccotak wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Blood_again wrote: »

Maya_Nur wrote: »

1. Humans psychologically need a sense of progression, a feeling of growing (that's why RPGs have leveling systems at all) so self-debuff is like God pretending human, while toggle mod is more like a God went for a challenge. By the way, increasing mob's stats won't work. As CP5 said and others said previously, we need smarter enemies which DESIRE to kill us.
2. Playing with others but with a debuff upon a character just doesn't make sense because low-level characters already have an invisible buff so they can rival an 160CP overland. Making newbies strong and veterans weak is just rediculous.

Toggle also implies (would be nice at least) an oportunity to replay all the quests once again. I have completed zones' stories years ago, but finish them again with another character is not for me. Not only because I like my main, but also because gameplay is not engaging now.

There is an issue with implementing smarter enemies. You literally want to have a new game inside ESO. I'm afraid it's hard to "sell" this idea to ZoS. So we need a compromise. How to make the current overland changes as minimal as possible to make what you accept as "vet"?

Solution with veteran and newcomer is even harder. Please remember that we are taking steps from the current game in current state. Do you really want a challenge in battle with mobs? Or do you want just to feel stronger than newcomer? It is two different directions to move, two ideas to "sell".

Neither, we want general combat to not be boring.

Cannot do Vet Overland? Ok, then implement more interesting enemies that we encounter in open world
Make different types of Tougher NPCs & Mini-Bosses who use varying mechanics. Then sprinkle them throughout the zones for more encounters, Not too much but just enough to spice up the gameplay.

Examples:
Really take a look at enemies with mechanics we see from Mini-Bosses in the story.
Disappointing in the story but they’d better serve in general overland.
Those guys are designed for solo play that anyone can do so just scatter them throughout the zone.

The problem with “Tougher Enemies” today is that they’re too rare in exploration and only their health and damage is buffed.
So they’re still boring because they don’t do anything different and don’t utilize ESO mechanics. They aren’t interesting and therefore not Fun.

However, Mini-bosses like Nathari would be a great base for a “Master Necromancer” overland encounter.

Video 17:47 mark

https://youtu.be/hIZN1mUHTKU

Imagine exploring the wild and encountering a Master Necromancer who summons a Bone Colossus, does a wide ring area affect, and/or possibly transforms into a Lich or Bone Colossus.

Other types they can do
- Bandit Chiefs
- Master Assassin
- Pyromancer
- Cryomancer
- Briar Hearts (they exist but need adjustments)
- Beast Master
- Minotaur Champion
- Werewolf Behemoth (or others)
-

All of which are faster, attack & use abilities more frequently, have more abilities - some of which cover more ground.

Have one of those with a mob every 1 out 5-8 encounters and that changes things up at a reasonable rate without being overdone.

Also the wide variety of different types which would help keep the random encounters more interesting.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I would like to point out that I am just an average player, and the hardest content I do is vet dungeons(non-DLC) and some normal trials, and even I find the overland stupidly easy to the point of frustation, so it must be even worse for high elite players

It's better for many of us who engage in actually difficult content, not worse. One reason I don't mind Overland being easy very much is It's a nice break from harder, more organized content. I don't gotta care about which set I have or focus on not getting one shot, I can just listen to some interesting dialogue and chill. When I get sick of hard content, vet content is there for me. And vice versa.

I think the majority of the people who complain about Vet Overland are the people who refuse to actually challenge themselves with the actually difficult content in this game in favor of playing tutorial content over and over, then complain about the game being too easy. If you've never done something like try to get a vet dlc dungeon skin, go for flawless conqueror, or killed a vet dlc trial boss ofc this game seems too easy. You're purposefully avoiding hard content.

There are definitely some people out there who only do vet content though. I sympathize with them. We need more arenas and such.

There are a wide variety of different players who have agreed that they find Overland lacking.

I myself regularly do Endgame Dungeons, and I’m working on completing the trials.

The problem isn’t “a lack of endgame content“ – the problem is that the current Gameplay in the story, especially the main story, and exploration is largely unenjoyable.

The gameplay in the main story undercuts the narrative to such a degree that it kills immersion and ruins any investment that I might’ve had.
What many have said, including myself, is that the gameplay for contact like the main story needs to be improved and/or have a Veteran toggle - so then it is enjoyable to players besides beginners or those not looking for gameplay to matter.

The gameplay experience affects the quality of the story. Poor and Un-engaging Gameplay makes the story worse

Are you suggesting that if the NPCs merely had more moves/attacks yet they still did not do much damage and are just as easy to kill that players wanting more difficulty would be satisfied? Their "strength would still be the same as it is today so they would still be just as challenging or lack of being a challenge.

It’s not just about “having more moves“ it’s about what those moves do. It’s how they affect the player in it in what ways it pushes the player to do different things.
——————————————————
For example earlier today I did a daily Delve quest.
In the delve I encountered a strangler and a hack wing.

I first gave my attention to the hackwing, but then the strangler pulled me in and then right as I recovered, the hackwing knocked me down.

I recovered again but this time I had to back up and reassess. I had to take note of my surroundings.

They didn’t hit harder than the general Overland mob, but they both engaged me, used their mechanics together in tandem, and at a quick pace.

It put me in a situation where I had to think about what I was doing - and be wary of enemies - which was rare and refreshing.
It made me think; “Why don’t other mobs work together like that?”

Such a small thing from minor enemies but the way their mechanics worked together made me think about what I was doing, which engaged me and made it a little fun.
——————————————————

Again there is this massive misconception and generalization that ”all of us” are asking for overland to be as hard as a DLC Dungeon or Trial. When that isn’t the case at all, what people have been saying is make the gameplay more interesting.
It does not only comes down to stats but also mechanics.

As a first step to addressing this issue, my idea is to implement more tougher enemies that not only have more abilities that cover more area, but also use them more frequently and faster.

To add on to this;
As someone else pointed out, a second step would be to adjust the mobs to stop using abilities that waste time or temporarily disengage them from combat.

Sorry, I did not read the entire post because it seems we are talking about two different things.

However, this does drive home the point Rich made, that this is not so simple. Heck, it shows things more complicated than even Rich commented on. Some people are complaining because they are killing NPCs so fast they do not have time to do anything (one or two hits and they are dead) but you are providing an example of killing them slower and seeing the mechanics which is irrelevant to the first camp.

AlexanderDeLarge

SilverBride wrote: »

We have also established that a lot of players are sticking around, because as Rich Lambert pointed out ESO is doing better now than it ever has.

That's not as much of an accomplishment as you might believe it is when we're talking about a game that launched in a completely broken state that made most people quit on top of a tedious endgame progression system that burnt out a good portion of the people who managed to stick with it.

We've also established, whatever anecdote is being used to discourage rectifying the difficulty for veteran players is seven years out of date before thousands of quests, dozens of zones and 15 content releases worth of gear and the power creep associated with that gear and the Champion Point system itself which did not exist back in 2014.

The Elder Scrolls Online can implement something to address the overland difficulty concerns without the game going bankrupt.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

And what numbers do you have to backup that you've been "gaslit" about the vast majority enjoying the story content as is?

Like nobody's trolling you, we just don't agree.

Numbers? Am I supposed to fire up some pie charts or something? The fact that this is an extremely recurrent request indicates that there's a problem and based on off forum discourse I've seen whenever the game comes up in a general sense, lack of difficulty tends to get mentioned and it's probably a bigger problem that you or ZOS themselves realize. As I've suggested, spend a couple minutes in the overland and follow a CP300+ player around, I guarantee you that their combat encounters last less than three seconds unless they're fighting an elite or world boss. You can see this in YouTube videos as well if you watch a random bit of gameplay or a twitch stream. How on earth can that be enjoyable when the overland is ~95% of the game?

These are the three main arguments against a veteran overland and they're all easily dismantled [snip]

[edited for baiting]

mickeyx

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

HARROWSTORMS.

People don’t seem to remember but when Harrowstorms debuted they were widely complained about. Excessively hard for overworld. Unfair with mechanics like the Wraith of Crow attacks.

They gave Harrowstorms several world boss level enemies that rotated in cycles and had plenty of telegraphed attacks.

You go into Western Skyrim now and what do you find? No one is doing Harrowstorms. The same storm sits in the same place for hours. Head down into Blackreach and it’s the same thing.

And this has a domino effect. Players don’t come in to do the world bosses or delves.

Next to Craglorn, Western Skyrim and Blackreach are the deadest zones. And both just reinforced the fact that the demand for harder overland is just shallow. Players give it up and easily move on.

This.

Players don't even do the group content already available in the game. No matter what group content they introduce in future it will be abondoned. The only reason dungeons are popular because of dungeon finder tool. If people had to spam chats to find groups dungeons would be abondoned too.

SilverBride

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

The fact that this is an extremely recurrent request indicates that there's a problem...

This only indicates that the same proposal keeps being requested. It does not take into account if it's being requested by one poster or a multitude of different posters.

kargen27

". I’ve been keeping an archive of every time this topic as well as discussions about combat Gameplay come up - I can tell you for a fact that there are a wide variety of different types of players who have made similar criticisms about Overland/Story content."

It's the same few players bringing it up time and again. A really small percentage even if we just go by regular forum posters.

And that wide variety leads to a wide variety of fixes. Some want the stories to have more dialog choices that impact the game. Even among those that want harder content there is very little consensus. Toggles, potions, gear, instances, more health for mobs, mechanics, roaming bosses, harder world bosses, and other ideas have been suggested just in this thread. The different instance idea has five or six people I would call real supporters of the idea and a few others that fall into I wouldn't mind if they did that camp. About the same number are adamantly opposed. So we have in reality less than fifteen people here that really care one way or the other about a separate instance and the funny thing is someone on both sides has claimed they know what the majority wants.

It isn't worth their time to rework old zones to provide a vet version and if they do anything other than rework the old zones in response to this we won't be happy with the results. All this thread has done is show ZoS we like to argue.

mickeyx

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

The fact that this is an extremely recurrent request indicates that there's a problem...

This only indicates that the same proposal keeps being requested. It does not take into account if it's being requested by one poster or a multitude of different posters.

Yep and he is also conveniently ignoring majority of players saying no to these demands for harder overland content everytime this topic comes up. More people are against it than they are in favour.

spartaxoxo

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Numbers? Am I supposed to fire up some pie charts or something?

Yes. You are. [snip] Show us. What proof do you have that it's a lie that the vast majority of players enjoy the story content?

[edited for baiting]

AlexanderDeLarge

kargen27 wrote: »

It's the same few players bringing it up time and again. A really small percentage even if we just go by regular forum posters

The same could be said for the other side of the argument. Not gonna get into that whole can of worms but lets just say that one side of the argument regularly gets out of hand to the point where this is the longest a thread about this has gone without getting locked in a very long time.

Iccotak

Elsonso wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

As a first step to addressing this issue, my idea is to implement more tougher enemies that not only have more abilities that cover more area, but also use them more frequently and faster.

I am wondering if the wandering bosses in Deadlands are the manifestation of ZOS making overland harder. They can be easily avoided by the solitary masses, potentially solo'ed by the elite, and taken down by groups. As a bonus, they are not hidden in some obscure walled off location. I doubt that this first pass will move the bar much, but maybe in future DLCs.

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

The difference between the two are literally a ruleset change with flat modifiers and a single field that assigns the player to the respective phase desired by the player just like dungeons/trials/arenas function now.
[overland="normal"]
or
[overland="veteran"]

Beyond that they should easily be able to continue dynamically handling world phases as the game functions now. Why are you making this out to be some huge thing as if they'd have to open up an entire megaserver worth of infrastructure dedicated to veteran overland phasing? It's literally the same sorting system that exists for arenas, dungeon and trial content.

So, that is not how the game currently works, as I understand it. The veteran and normal versions of the dungeon are different maps of the same dungeon. I am not certain how Hard Mode works, but since Rich said that they do not dynamically do mob scaling, it is probably a separate map from the veteran version of that room. A separate map allows them to make more changes than just scaling the mobs between difficulty levels.

I am sure that does not prevent them from dynamically doing that, but my understanding is that they currently do not do that. Either way, it really does sound like a "huge thing". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Wandering Bosses was actually something they did back in Imperial City. So they’re doing more with that.

kargen27 wrote: »

". I’ve been keeping an archive of every time this topic as well as discussions about combat Gameplay come up - I can tell you for a fact that there are a wide variety of different types of players who have made similar criticisms about Overland/Story content."

It's the same few players bringing it up time and again. A really small percentage even if we just go by regular forum posters.

And that wide variety leads to a wide variety of fixes. Some want the stories to have more dialog choices that impact the game. Even among those that want harder content there is very little consensus. Toggles, potions, gear, instances, more health for mobs, mechanics, roaming bosses, harder world bosses, and other ideas have been suggested just in this thread. The different instance idea has five or six people I would call real supporters of the idea and a few others that fall into I wouldn't mind if they did that camp. About the same number are adamantly opposed. So we have in reality less than fifteen people here that really care one way or the other about a separate instance and the funny thing is someone on both sides has claimed they know what the majority wants.

It isn't worth their time to rework old zones to provide a vet version and if they do anything other than rework the old zones in response to this we won't be happy with the results. All this thread has done is show ZoS we like to argue.

Incorrect. Yes the OP has notably brought up this subject according to their post history.

However, many different players besides “the usuals” have brought it up. And in those discussions there are many who chime in - amongst those we can see a wide variety of different types of players.

There are the usual people who debate but also a lot of new voices every time that voice their perspective. And there are a variety of different players who agree and disagree about the problem as well as proposed solutions.

There are many who’ve advocated for improvements to overland and opposed a separate instance. It’s not some conspiracy collective, or monolith, so stop generalizing everyone.
(This is more so aimed at the direction of the thread and less at the individual)

It’s a controversial topic, ALOT of people are going to have different ideas and opinions.