800k people don't seem to mind difficult overworld

Vhozek

NagualV wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

ZOS overreacted with the change they made to overland mobs by making them all scale with the player and/or vise verse (because I know someone will point out it's the other way around even though it doesn't matter).
They jumped from one end of the spectrum to the other very drastically and basically relaunched the game with One Ta

Nagastani wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

Or another option could be to just make mobs tougher overall and do more damage to everyone and offer a buff for those that want to make it easier for lower levels. As some people really are no interested in the combat and just want to read dialogue, you could offer them a buff potion that makes them immune to being killed or makes it so mobs wont attack you. That way it wouldnt matter how tough the overland mobs are made.

So players who are perfectly happy with overland quests and mobs should be buffed to make them invincible so they won't complain when overland difficulty is increased to please a small minority of the playerbase? Where is our engaging combat then?

So. Getting back to this. After spending some time in New World, (which by the way I have to make this short cause I need to get back soon) I'm understanding like... alot. Its really helped me in the way in which I look at MMOs.

However. I don't think anyone wants invincible mobs. C'mon now.

What do we want.. is *PROGRESSION*

Ok. -Progression- Your skills should matter, the choices you make should matter. Granted, there are mobs in New World, like Wolves, that are hard as hell in the beginning yet, over time, they become a cake walk to take down and then those mobs level with you as you travel to other areas.

The mistake ZOS made from One Tam, is they stripped the Progression from the game. It got boring after that. Its as simple as that. If I don't need to care about something then it forgettable and not worth my time. And all of ESO content is most certainly NOT like that ... but there is a notable lack of progression in ESO.

One interesting note though, its so interesting how certain ppl in ESO Cyrodiil PvP were always making demands for ppl they don't like to leave the server, because that was 'their' home. Like they owned the server. This happened frequently on Blackreach. So many times I was advised to change my faction or leave 'their' server. In New World it's totally different. We need everyone and we just don't have this problem and it feels so good. Especially since there is also no Dark Convergence or bombers in New World to speak of. It's just great.

Anyways my Faction needs me... time to get back. Peace

Sounds like you want what I'm proposing. Overland PvP flagging that debuffs players vs mobs if they're flagged.

This is very much unlikely to happen. Even Rich stated that it was a very conscious decision they made in the early planning of ESO that there would be no PvP in the open world. It is why they created Cyrodiil. Probably a wise decision since even New World went from hardcore full-time PvP and made it optional and softened it up heavily to entice the larger Pve crowns and because they could not find a way to cease the PvP griefing.

Seems to be working in the other action MMORPG. If you're flagged for PvP, expect people to attack you at any given point, meaning that PvP "griefing" doesn't exist. I do not get this argument because you voluntarily flagged for PvP.

At this point, I would tell you to not even bring up the other game anymore....I and others are enjoying it a lot, but its absolutely pointless to bring it up.

Open world pvp isnt happening in this game. People would not flag, period. Increased difficulty isnt happening either, it's just the way it is.

Well, if you don't flag that's fine. There are people who would. I don't even like PvP but I would flag just to make it that much more interesting to explore.

Vhozek

Here is my conclusion after this long thread.
I'm not welcome in this game and it is not for me.
I give up giving it a try. All you have done is discouraged me from wanting to make this a better experience for me and other people who think like me.
Nobody should be begging for this many years to enjoy a product they spent money on and continuing to do so is an incredible lack of self respect on my part.

summ0004

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Except, you can’t factor out the “other“, that’s about 20 out of the 140 people that voted so far.

and really trying to do so comes off as trying to manipulate the numbers in your favor.

“Let’s just ignore those people’s feedback because it doesn’t directly support my argument”

I thought stats and numbers mattered to you seeing as how frequently you bring it up?

if you read through the replies of the yellow option, then you would see that predominantly they enjoy the writing but they are unhappy with the combat when it comes to the final boss.

Nuance matters, and once I read through the replies it was pretty obvious that it’s about 50% who are happy with the story experience and 50% who either don’t bother or have some criticism about it.

Let's leave other in then. It is still 52% satisfied and 32% not.

I read through the other comments and I do not come to the same conclusion. The other replies aren't clearly yes or no, therefor they can't accurately be applied to either answer.

EDIT: Removing other actually increased the percentage of those who chose no, and in no way was an attempt to manipulate in my favor.

So 1/3rd of those polled are not satisfied, and you think those are acceptable numbers?

Also, it's very hard to take your points seriously when you are blatantly trying to twist it with comments like "if you leave xyz out". You don't get to pick and choose which information gets considered and which gets left out.

Idk why any of y’all are referring to a forum poll that has less that 150 participants as some kind of indicator of anything. 150 ppl out of 19 million possible users, and heavily biased at that to even be posting to these message boards means nothing.

I wouldn’t draw any inferences from a forum poll unless you had at least 5000 responses, and even then that’s still just a view amongst the hardcore, in no way the casual players.

You'd only need like 400 people to have a decent poll.

400 people of an unbiased population sample.

In order to get onto these forums you have to be invited, approved, and go through several incredible loops to do so. Then, those being polled here are simply the ones who clicked on said forum post and then decided to respond.

There was no effort to gather a proper spread of individuals. That poll is already tainted by so many factors that any results are statistically insignificant.

I would argue one of the only places on this forum where feedback is actually significant are in the PTS pages or bug reports. Everything else is opinionated from the get go. Even the polls most of the times asked loaded skewed questions that show clear bias.

This forum topic here started with a bias. One of the reasons it continues so long is that A LOT of us, including yourself @spartaxoxo are calling that bias out and showing evidence to the contrary of a lot of assumptions. Evidence based on both fact and coming from reliable sources in the know like Rich.

It is a small sample size and may not be truly representative but its at least a start.It does still highlight there are some changes that could be made to the game that could make it more inclusive to more players and I included some possible solutions above.

It does at least show that is not a tiny minority like 1% that has issues with mobs and bosses in the world. We do not truly know what this figure is going to be whether its over 30% like this poll suggests or whether its 25% or 20%. But this is still potentially a lot of players that should not be totally ignored.

As for Rich Lamberts comments, one person can not be all knowing and all seeing either, and he would be wise to be open minded to the player base too especially as things do not stay the same in the MMO market forever especially with new competition being released. If the fix to get more players or retain dissatisfied players is an easy one too implement, without affecting the players who are happy, then it would be wise to at least research and consider this.

SilverBride

summ0004 wrote: »

As for Rich Lamberts comments, one person can not be all knowing and all seeing either, and he would be wise to be open minded to the player base too especially as things do not stay the same in the MMO market forever especially with new competition being released. If the fix to get more players or retain dissatisfied players is an easy one too implement, without affecting the players who are happy, then it would be wise to at least research and consider this.

Rich has access to statistics. He can see what content is being utilized and by how many. He can also compare how successful ESO was in the past and after any changes that were made. These are much more accurate indicators than the forums.

spartaxoxo

@summ0004

Please edit out any @name in a quote before quoting it, or it sends a notification to the person who was @. In this case myself, although you were actually speaking to Trackdemon

Iccotak

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Aliyavana wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

New World has an incredibly challenging open world and it's refreshing to say the least after playing The Elder Scrolls Online for years where the hardest thing about most of these quest chains is walking to the objective.

The most logical course of action is very simple. Players who enjoy difficult and challenging overland should play games like New World. Those who enjoy a more relaxing overland story experience should play games like ESO. It is not logical to expect either type game to completely change their base game to adapt to individual players.

We’d like optional challenging overland content in an elder scrolls setting though. We would like the gameplay to reflect the lore that establishes powerful enemies.

The developers addressed this when introducing One Tamriel, the systems within, and scaling in 2014. See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jk7LrLgRfg

Basically it comes down to the lore has you fighting and defeating Molag Bal, a Daedric Prince at that. Why afterwards should you be dying to skeevers just because they’re set to a higher difficulty level? That itself not only breaks lore but logic.

No one has argued for that 🤦‍♂️

(Btw this is a common bad faith strawman that is consistently pointed out to be NOT what people are asking for)

Elsonso

summ0004 wrote: »

But you need to consider that over 30% of people not being satisfied with the mobs and bosses is actually a huge number and shouldnt be ignored. I know this is only a small sample size but it at least shows its certainly not a tiny minority of like 1% of hardcore players that feel this way, but many other casual players.

Just to put something into perspective, we are talking 30% of a group of people that is at or less than 1% of the 19 million accounts created since launch.

Literally, everyone who has weighed in and posted a comment on the subject of Veteran Overland and Harder Content is a member of an ESO One Percenter club, and that is being generous. In the entirety of time, only 160 thousand people out of that 19 million have ever posted here, and only 150 people have voted in that poll (which is not about veteran overland) at the time of this comment.

This one reason why none of the polls, whether the reflect my views or not, matter outside of the forum. Entertainment purposes only.

summ0004 wrote: »

The question of how you go about making it viable for these players is complex and probably needs some thoughts, but it certainly cant be ignored. I think it would probably be difficult having a separate veteran server for overland and I respect this is probably not the best way forward, which is why I have suggested options such as

1. Making overland mobs harder and have better AI and offer buff food to players who want to use it.
2. Making nerf food for players to make current overland harder, but this still doesnt resolve the AI issues
3. leaving overland as it is in most case but introduce more special elite mobs
4. Make instance mobs and boss harder with optional difficulty scrolls.
5. Make overland mobs harder and have better AI and introduce more party companions.

But it is clear that something needs to be done.

Number 4 is basically dungeon hard mode, and it is getting added to new content. We can mark that as "partially done". I don't expect they will go back to do older dungeons, as I guess this is a bit of work to do.

Out of the rest, I think that #3 has the most merit. This is mainly because it does not require zone instances, layers, switches, options, nerfs, or buff food, and it does not change entire zones. The wandering bosses in Deadlands is a good example of this direction. They present a challenge, but are easily avoided. I know people point to Imperial City, but that is a PVP zone and wandering bosses have a different sort of danger there. Deadlands is the first mainstream PVE wandering boss and I expect we may see more of them in future zone content, if people use them.

Seminolegirl1992

It would not be difficult for ZoS to add instanced veteran content for those who are interested, which is a larger number than just the "elite" everyone seems to be referring to. Joining a group with friends on the normal instance would induce an option to join them in said content, and vice versa. Instances already exist. Assuming that players who want more challenging stories are just end game elites is extremely disingenuous. I would estimate that 95% of my gameplay in ESO is rp and housing. 1% trials/dungeons. The rest is farming/crafting/events probably. I want a vet overland instance and I think you would be surprised how many would opt for such a thing. It would not reduce the number of people in xyz instance since the game is *already* instanced, and asking a friend to join you to defeat a world boss solves population issues should there be one. Rich having access to old statistics was already explained in older comments. The game cannot be compared to how it was in the beginning- much has changed since then, especially with power creep. The VR system and today's system are drastically different.

spartaxoxo

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

It would not be difficult for ZoS to add instanced veteran content for those who are interested, which is a larger number than just the "elite" everyone seems to be referring to. Joining a group with friends on the normal instance would induce an option to join them in said content, and vice versa. Instances already exist. Assuming that players who want more challenging stories are just end game elites is extremely disingenuous. I would estimate that 95% of my gameplay in ESO is rp and housing. 1% trials/dungeons. The rest is farming/crafting/events probably. I want a vet overland instance and I think you would be surprised how many would opt for such a thing. It would not reduce the number of people in xyz instance since the game is *already* instanced, and asking a friend to join you to defeat a world boss solves population issues should there be one. Rich having access to old statistics was already explained in older comments. The game cannot be compared to how it was in the beginning- much has changed since then, especially with power creep. The VR system and today's system are drastically different.

And which trials and dungeons are you running? Because elite isn't being defined here as only the guys doing stuff like Godslayer.

Beyond that, it WOULD split the playerbase. That's how adding another instance works. They can merge and add as many of the same setting players as needed to keep everyone unified, they cannot do that with ones with different difficulty settings.

On Splitting the playerbase using different difficulty

'We get this question or request a lot too. We built overland content to be inclusive because as an MMO we want to unify as much of the player base as possible in a given zone. Difficulty sliders and settings are a detriment to that."

Franchise408

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Aliyavana wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

New World has an incredibly challenging open world and it's refreshing to say the least after playing The Elder Scrolls Online for years where the hardest thing about most of these quest chains is walking to the objective.

The most logical course of action is very simple. Players who enjoy difficult and challenging overland should play games like New World. Those who enjoy a more relaxing overland story experience should play games like ESO. It is not logical to expect either type game to completely change their base game to adapt to individual players.

We’d like optional challenging overland content in an elder scrolls setting though. We would like the gameplay to reflect the lore that establishes powerful enemies.

The developers addressed this when introducing One Tamriel, the systems within, and scaling in 2014. See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jk7LrLgRfg

Basically it comes down to the lore has you fighting and defeating Molag Bal, a Daedric Prince at that. Why afterwards should you be dying to skeevers just because they’re set to a higher difficulty level? That itself not only breaks lore but logic.

idk, but by that logic, why does a lioness in Volenfell *fear* you after you've already defeated Molag Bal?

Why are soldiers of the 3 Banners War fighting *against* each other in Imperial City when there is a daedric invasion that should be unifying the forces?

Why do mobs chase and chase and chase you, hit you, but when you turn to attack them back, they heal, turn invincible, and run away?

There's little to nothing in this game that actually enhances an immersive experience. You are reminded every step of the way that you are playing a game. So why does lore and logic suddenly apply when it comes to getting an optional increased difficulty?

Seminolegirl1992

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

It would not be difficult for ZoS to add instanced veteran content for those who are interested, which is a larger number than just the "elite" everyone seems to be referring to. Joining a group with friends on the normal instance would induce an option to join them in said content, and vice versa. Instances already exist. Assuming that players who want more challenging stories are just end game elites is extremely disingenuous. I would estimate that 95% of my gameplay in ESO is rp and housing. 1% trials/dungeons. The rest is farming/crafting/events probably. I want a vet overland instance and I think you would be surprised how many would opt for such a thing. It would not reduce the number of people in xyz instance since the game is *already* instanced, and asking a friend to join you to defeat a world boss solves population issues should there be one. Rich having access to old statistics was already explained in older comments. The game cannot be compared to how it was in the beginning- much has changed since then, especially with power creep. The VR system and today's system are drastically different.

And which trials and dungeons are you running? Because elite isn't being defined here as only the guys doing stuff like Godslayer.

Beyond that, it WOULD split the playerbase. That's how adding another instance works. They can merge and add as many of the same setting players as needed to keep everyone unified, they cannot do that with ones with different difficulty settings.

Players are already split into manageable instances. I would say that about half of my friends' list is casual, and the other half enjoy end game content. That, and 5 guilds- leaves plenty of options to ask people to go fight a world boss or do w/e in overland with if there were to even be an issue. Everyone would remain on the same server. Just a different instance. It changes little. As for your question, all of them. I doubt I'm good enough for godslayer but I enjoy hm achieves and trifectas. But that is a minuscule fraction of my time.

Callosum

SilverBride wrote: »

Callosum wrote: »

I think the coming years are going to be ruff for ESO.

I don't understand why you think that. Rich Lambert recently stated that ESO is doing better now than it ever has.

Callosum wrote: »

The PVP playerbase is leaving - players who have paid every month for years without getting anything in return.

I can't speak to what PvP players are doing because no numbers have been presented to show this.

Callosum wrote: »

I have have recently seen some of the biggest youtubers and content creators telling that they don't look forward to the upcoming DLC because overland and questing is not engaging anymore despite this is where ESO should shine compared to other MMO's.

I don't watch streamers because they generally only represent the small percentage of hard core players.

Callosum wrote: »

If ESO keeps putting out content where only 5% of it is dedicated to endgame or skilled players they will loss a lot of the regular players.

It is pretty standard in MMO's that only a small percentage engage in end game content, yet ESO has a huge amount of veteran dungeons, trials and arenas for these players to enjoy.

• The most recent chapters didn't seem to have been very popular and a big deal this years success can probably also be attributed to the pandemic. however, it doesn't sound incorrect that the game is peaking now which makes it even more important to make sure that you hold on the players that are actually here now.
• It obviously isn't going well. They haven't been able to fix their greatest issues, new content is not coming, and the competition is increasing.
• A small percentage of hardcore players who also happens to be ESO's biggest marketing platform. Don't underestimate that - they are a big part of the reason that you get all the casual content every year.
• That is actually some of the problem although you misunderstood me on this one. Players end up getting stuck between endgame content and overland/questing. A big group aren't ready for Vet content or just isn't going to participate in it but the overland content is still way to easy.
  An to my actual point. Players aren't asking for more endgame content like vet dungeons, trial etc. As you are saying players are enjoying this but it's only like 5% of the new content. What we want is to enjoy the rest of it which is actually the standard for most MMO's where updates often is new endgame zones at least in the ones i have played.

trackdemon5512

Vhozek wrote: »

Here is my conclusion after this long thread.
I'm not welcome in this game and it is not for me.
I give up giving it a try. All you have done is discouraged me from wanting to make this a better experience for me and other people who think like me.
Nobody should be begging for this many years to enjoy a product they spent money on and continuing to do so is an incredible lack of self respect on my part.

The developers and other players here haven’t said you or any other players aren’t welcome. What is being said is that a number of players who share sentiments similar to yourself regarding overland difficulty have shared those feelings with the developers. And that said developers have explored it, analyzed it with statistics, and found that creating such specialized content isn’t worth the time, effort, and cost when put in the larger picture of keeping a massive game like ESO running and enjoyed by everyone.

An argument can be endlessly appealed to but the developers are past the point of hearing out arguments in this particular case. They’ve heard the same things for 7 years now.

summ0004

SilverBride wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

As for Rich Lamberts comments, one person can not be all knowing and all seeing either, and he would be wise to be open minded to the player base too especially as things do not stay the same in the MMO market forever especially with new competition being released. If the fix to get more players or retain dissatisfied players is an easy one too implement, without affecting the players who are happy, then it would be wise to at least research and consider this.

Rich has access to statistics. He can see what content is being utilized and by how many. He can also compare how successful ESO was in the past and after any changes that were made. These are much more accurate indicators than the forums.

That doesnt neccesarily represent what peoples feelings and opinions are, purely what is being played by people and when. People may play certain content because they like certain aspects of the game(story and exploration), but may still get frustrated by and not enjoy other elements(such as combat).

Likewise the forums may not represent the exact statistics either, but you have limited other options to go by as many people are silent and are not voicing their opinion but that does not mean they are all fine with things exactly as they are. BTW I was in this silent group till recently but was not voicing my opions but it did not mean I didnt have any.

It makes sense for games to evolve and change as markets, competition and customers needs change in order to stop stagnation and freshen things up and you cannot simply compare launch success with present success and then expect it to go forward in a linear fashion with no change.

spartaxoxo

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

It would not be difficult for ZoS to add instanced veteran content for those who are interested, which is a larger number than just the "elite" everyone seems to be referring to. Joining a group with friends on the normal instance would induce an option to join them in said content, and vice versa. Instances already exist. Assuming that players who want more challenging stories are just end game elites is extremely disingenuous. I would estimate that 95% of my gameplay in ESO is rp and housing. 1% trials/dungeons. The rest is farming/crafting/events probably. I want a vet overland instance and I think you would be surprised how many would opt for such a thing. It would not reduce the number of people in xyz instance since the game is *already* instanced, and asking a friend to join you to defeat a world boss solves population issues should there be one. Rich having access to old statistics was already explained in older comments. The game cannot be compared to how it was in the beginning- much has changed since then, especially with power creep. The VR system and today's system are drastically different.

And which trials and dungeons are you running? Because elite isn't being defined here as only the guys doing stuff like Godslayer.

Beyond that, it WOULD split the playerbase. That's how adding another instance works. They can merge and add as many of the same setting players as needed to keep everyone unified, they cannot do that with ones with different difficulty settings.

Players are already split into manageable instances. I would say that about half of my friends' list is casual, and the other half enjoy end game content. That, and 5 guilds- leaves plenty of options to ask people to go fight a world boss or do w/e in overland with if there were to even be an issue. Everyone would remain on the same server. Just a different instance. It changes little. As for your question, all of them. I doubt I'm good enough for godslayer but I enjoy hm achieves and trifectas. But that is a minuscule fraction of my time.

It's not about the amount of time you spend doing things, it's about your capabilities. You're an elite player asking for vet overland, for the purposes of this discussion, rather than a casual one. Because if you can do stuff like trifectas, then you're way higher skill than vast majority of the playerbase regardless if you'd prefer to roleplay or not.

And it doesn't change only a little.

The way things work right now if there's a lot of people on then we get multiple instances. They drop that down to a single instance when the population is low. If there was a vet overland there would be required to be at least 2, so the population would be split. New players don't have guild or friends nor is that stuff being mandatory within the philosophy of this game. Instead a good part of this game's success is that it unifies different types of players and it is new players meeting those experienced players while in unified areas that is a big part of this games success, something vet overland massively undercuts.

But you don't have to just take my word for it, this is what Rich Lambert has to say on the matter.

On Splitting the playerbase using different difficulty

'We get this question or request a lot too. We built overland content to be inclusive because as an MMO we want to unify as much of the player base as possible in a given zone. Difficulty sliders and settings are a detriment to that."

Splitting the playerbase is an objective downside to the idea of vet overland.

trackdemon5512

Franchise408 wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Aliyavana wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

New World has an incredibly challenging open world and it's refreshing to say the least after playing The Elder Scrolls Online for years where the hardest thing about most of these quest chains is walking to the objective.

The most logical course of action is very simple. Players who enjoy difficult and challenging overland should play games like New World. Those who enjoy a more relaxing overland story experience should play games like ESO. It is not logical to expect either type game to completely change their base game to adapt to individual players.

We’d like optional challenging overland content in an elder scrolls setting though. We would like the gameplay to reflect the lore that establishes powerful enemies.

The developers addressed this when introducing One Tamriel, the systems within, and scaling in 2014. See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jk7LrLgRfg

Basically it comes down to the lore has you fighting and defeating Molag Bal, a Daedric Prince at that. Why afterwards should you be dying to skeevers just because they’re set to a higher difficulty level? That itself not only breaks lore but logic.

idk, but by that logic, why does a lioness in Volenfell *fear* you after you've already defeated Molag Bal?

Why are soldiers of the 3 Banners War fighting *against* each other in Imperial City when there is a daedric invasion that should be unifying the forces?

Why do mobs chase and chase and chase you, hit you, but when you turn to attack them back, they heal, turn invincible, and run away?

There's little to nothing in this game that actually enhances an immersive experience. You are reminded every step of the way that you are playing a game. So why does lore and logic suddenly apply when it comes to getting an optional increased difficulty?

1) It’s an attack. In a game with magic and abilities I mean one that inspires fear regardless works. I don’t think there is anything in this game besides a few bosses that are immune to fear. And even players/mobs have cooldowns against such.

2) Because in the context of IC it was originally contested over as part of the three banners war. You just have the added joy of molag bal also wanting the white gold tower for himself at the center of Planemeld. The lord has always been that whomever sits upon the throne there rules the land. Why should it just be the land outside of the imperial city?

3) A) Fleeing a battle in any RPG works like this
Fleeing a battle in real life works like this. People give up, return to their posts, and recover.

Seminolegirl1992

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

It would not be difficult for ZoS to add instanced veteran content for those who are interested, which is a larger number than just the "elite" everyone seems to be referring to. Joining a group with friends on the normal instance would induce an option to join them in said content, and vice versa. Instances already exist. Assuming that players who want more challenging stories are just end game elites is extremely disingenuous. I would estimate that 95% of my gameplay in ESO is rp and housing. 1% trials/dungeons. The rest is farming/crafting/events probably. I want a vet overland instance and I think you would be surprised how many would opt for such a thing. It would not reduce the number of people in xyz instance since the game is *already* instanced, and asking a friend to join you to defeat a world boss solves population issues should there be one. Rich having access to old statistics was already explained in older comments. The game cannot be compared to how it was in the beginning- much has changed since then, especially with power creep. The VR system and today's system are drastically different.

And which trials and dungeons are you running? Because elite isn't being defined here as only the guys doing stuff like Godslayer.

Beyond that, it WOULD split the playerbase. That's how adding another instance works. They can merge and add as many of the same setting players as needed to keep everyone unified, they cannot do that with ones with different difficulty settings.

Players are already split into manageable instances. I would say that about half of my friends' list is casual, and the other half enjoy end game content. That, and 5 guilds- leaves plenty of options to ask people to go fight a world boss or do w/e in overland with if there were to even be an issue. Everyone would remain on the same server. Just a different instance. It changes little. As for your question, all of them. I doubt I'm good enough for godslayer but I enjoy hm achieves and trifectas. But that is a minuscule fraction of my time.

It's not about the amount of time you spend doing things, it's about your capabilities. You're an elite player asking for vet overland, for the purposes of this discussion, rather than a casual one. Because if you can do stuff like trifectas, then you're way higher skill than vast majority of the playerbase regardless if you'd prefer to roleplay or not.

And it doesn't change only a little.

The way things work right now if there's a lot of people on then we get multiple instances. They drop that down to a single instance when the population is low. If there was a vet overland there would be required to be at least 2, so the population would be split. New players don't have guild or friends nor is that stuff being mandatory within the philosophy of this game. Instead a good part of this game's success is that it unifies different types of players and it is new players meeting those experienced players while in unified areas that is a big part of this games success, something vet overland massively undercuts.

But you don't have to just take my word for it, this is what Rich Lambert has to say on the matter.

On Splitting the playerbase using different difficulty

'We get this question or request a lot too. We built overland content to be inclusive because as an MMO we want to unify as much of the player base as possible in a given zone. Difficulty sliders and settings are a detriment to that."

Splitting the playerbase is an objective downside to the idea of vet overland.

Well, if the majority of players are casual, then the majority of people would be in normal overland and little to nothing would change. It seems to me that the only issue for population would be for vet overland, which I severely doubt annoys people interested in vet overland to begin with. * with the exception of northern elsweyr dragons (since it's already so sparsely populated), in which case I would go to a normal instance of course*

spartaxoxo

summ0004 wrote: »

It makes sense for games to evolve and change as markets, competition and customers needs change in order to stop stagnation and freshen things up and you cannot simply compare launch success with present success and then expect it to go forward in a linear fashion with no change.

They actually have made quite a few changes. But those changes have largely not been utilized. A lot of people say they want vet overland and they like certain content, but then they don't actually go and play it.

Compare Dolmens to Dragons/Harrowstorms
Compare Coldharbour's public dungeon to Silent Halls in Blackwood
Compare the guar boss in base game to Kung Fu Kitty.

Seminolegirl1992

spartaxoxo wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

It makes sense for games to evolve and change as markets, competition and customers needs change in order to stop stagnation and freshen things up and you cannot simply compare launch success with present success and then expect it to go forward in a linear fashion with no change.

They actually have made quite a few changes. But those changes have largely not been utilized. A lot of people say they want vet overland and they like certain content, but then they don't actually go and play it.

I mean. Not if I'm farming. But when I'm doing story missions with my rppve friend, oh my god yes. We both want that so bad. When we fought the dragon bosses in Northern and Southern Elsweyr, we really wished they were more challenging. We even removed cp, all gear, put on weaker skills and even then it still is kinda meh. The story was fantastic of course. It's just the fights didn't add up to it.

Iccotak

spartaxoxo wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

It makes sense for games to evolve and change as markets, competition and customers needs change in order to stop stagnation and freshen things up and you cannot simply compare launch success with present success and then expect it to go forward in a linear fashion with no change.

They actually have made quite a few changes. But those changes have largely not been utilized. A lot of people say they want vet overland and they like certain content, but then they don't actually go and play it.

I see this thrown around a lot; this idea that people asking for this just don’t go do the Harder Content.

At the same time they also say: “you’re just used to Veteran content, don’t expect overland to cater to you”

So which one is it?

Additionally;

1. Where is your proof, do you have a chart that shows who of what play style thinks of overland?

2. In these threads many People of various different play styles have requested changes/options to overland/story.

Overall it just comes off as arguments being made in bad faith attempt to delegitimize those you disagree with.

Elsonso

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

It would not be difficult for ZoS to add instanced veteran content for those who are interested, which is a larger number than just the "elite" everyone seems to be referring to. Joining a group with friends on the normal instance would induce an option to join them in said content, and vice versa. Instances already exist. Assuming that players who want more challenging stories are just end game elites is extremely disingenuous. I would estimate that 95% of my gameplay in ESO is rp and housing. 1% trials/dungeons. The rest is farming/crafting/events probably. I want a vet overland instance and I think you would be surprised how many would opt for such a thing. It would not reduce the number of people in xyz instance since the game is *already* instanced, and asking a friend to join you to defeat a world boss solves population issues should there be one. Rich having access to old statistics was already explained in older comments. The game cannot be compared to how it was in the beginning- much has changed since then, especially with power creep. The VR system and today's system are drastically different.

The concept of "difficult" is not something that we can judge, and the issue may not even be difficulty, but simply that it breaks things. We may not be aware of all of things that might break.

"Instances" require hardware to run on, and that may or may not be a "difficulty". Just because they already do it does not mean that it won't be difficult.

I would also be really careful about Rich and "old statistics" as his statistics are probably current. It is highly unlikely that he out of touch, and he has vastly more information at his fingertip than we do. I mean, we are limited to peer comments, forum polls, and anecdotal information and he can know how many people attempt, succeed, give up, and die to overland mobs, delve bosses, dungeon bosses, trial bosses, etc.

Franchise408

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Aliyavana wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

New World has an incredibly challenging open world and it's refreshing to say the least after playing The Elder Scrolls Online for years where the hardest thing about most of these quest chains is walking to the objective.

The most logical course of action is very simple. Players who enjoy difficult and challenging overland should play games like New World. Those who enjoy a more relaxing overland story experience should play games like ESO. It is not logical to expect either type game to completely change their base game to adapt to individual players.

We’d like optional challenging overland content in an elder scrolls setting though. We would like the gameplay to reflect the lore that establishes powerful enemies.

The developers addressed this when introducing One Tamriel, the systems within, and scaling in 2014. See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jk7LrLgRfg

Basically it comes down to the lore has you fighting and defeating Molag Bal, a Daedric Prince at that. Why afterwards should you be dying to skeevers just because they’re set to a higher difficulty level? That itself not only breaks lore but logic.

idk, but by that logic, why does a lioness in Volenfell *fear* you after you've already defeated Molag Bal?

Why are soldiers of the 3 Banners War fighting *against* each other in Imperial City when there is a daedric invasion that should be unifying the forces?

Why do mobs chase and chase and chase you, hit you, but when you turn to attack them back, they heal, turn invincible, and run away?

There's little to nothing in this game that actually enhances an immersive experience. You are reminded every step of the way that you are playing a game. So why does lore and logic suddenly apply when it comes to getting an optional increased difficulty?

1) It’s an attack. In a game with magic and abilities I mean one that inspires fear regardless works. I don’t think there is anything in this game besides a few bosses that are immune to fear. And even players/mobs have cooldowns against such.

2) Because in the context of IC it was originally contested over as part of the three banners war. You just have the added joy of molag bal also wanting the white gold tower for himself at the center of Planemeld. The lord has always been that whomever sits upon the throne there rules the land. Why should it just be the land outside of the imperial city?

3) A) Fleeing a battle in any RPG works like this
Fleeing a battle in real life works like this. People give up, return to their posts, and recover.

1. The lioness fears YOU, I.E. hits YOU, the player, the Vestige, the one who defeated Molag Bal, with a fear ability. So the one that defeated Molag Bal is afraid of a lioness. Makes 0 sense.
2. The troops of the 3 Banners War would logically stop fighting each other to fight off a common enemy and a greater threat.
3. Fleeing in any RPG does not work like this, and fleeing in real life would not make the person pursuing you invincible to any of your attacks just because they ran a certain distance.

Hallothiel

Will state this again: do you not think that if this was profitable, it would have been implemented by now?

The bottom line is this is a business based on making profit, and whilst it can indulge some suggestions, it won’t if there is no profit in it.

Iccotak

Hallothiel wrote: »

Will state this again: do you not think that if this was profitable, it would have been implemented by now?

The bottom line is this is a business based on making profit, and whilst it can indulge some suggestions, it won’t if there is no profit in it.

Well maintaining a healthy playerbase for starters is good for profit

trackdemon5512

Franchise408 wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Aliyavana wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

New World has an incredibly challenging open world and it's refreshing to say the least after playing The Elder Scrolls Online for years where the hardest thing about most of these quest chains is walking to the objective.

The most logical course of action is very simple. Players who enjoy difficult and challenging overland should play games like New World. Those who enjoy a more relaxing overland story experience should play games like ESO. It is not logical to expect either type game to completely change their base game to adapt to individual players.

We’d like optional challenging overland content in an elder scrolls setting though. We would like the gameplay to reflect the lore that establishes powerful enemies.

The developers addressed this when introducing One Tamriel, the systems within, and scaling in 2014. See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jk7LrLgRfg

Basically it comes down to the lore has you fighting and defeating Molag Bal, a Daedric Prince at that. Why afterwards should you be dying to skeevers just because they’re set to a higher difficulty level? That itself not only breaks lore but logic.

idk, but by that logic, why does a lioness in Volenfell *fear* you after you've already defeated Molag Bal?

Why are soldiers of the 3 Banners War fighting *against* each other in Imperial City when there is a daedric invasion that should be unifying the forces?

Why do mobs chase and chase and chase you, hit you, but when you turn to attack them back, they heal, turn invincible, and run away?

There's little to nothing in this game that actually enhances an immersive experience. You are reminded every step of the way that you are playing a game. So why does lore and logic suddenly apply when it comes to getting an optional increased difficulty?

1) It’s an attack. In a game with magic and abilities I mean one that inspires fear regardless works. I don’t think there is anything in this game besides a few bosses that are immune to fear. And even players/mobs have cooldowns against such.

2) Because in the context of IC it was originally contested over as part of the three banners war. You just have the added joy of molag bal also wanting the white gold tower for himself at the center of Planemeld. The lord has always been that whomever sits upon the throne there rules the land. Why should it just be the land outside of the imperial city?

3) A) Fleeing a battle in any RPG works like this
Fleeing a battle in real life works like this. People give up, return to their posts, and recover.

1. The lioness fears YOU, I.E. hits YOU, the player, the Vestige, the one who defeated Molag Bal, with a fear ability. So the one that defeated Molag Bal is afraid of a lioness. Makes 0 sense.
2. The troops of the 3 Banners War would logically stop fighting each other to fight off a common enemy and a greater threat.
3. Fleeing in any RPG does not work like this, and fleeing in real life would not make the person pursuing you invincible to any of your attacks just because they ran a certain distance.

1). It’s an attack designed to specifically induce fear regardless. You, the one who defeated Molag Bal, get feared by it or a Bone Totem or a Nightblade trap. Makes sense to me.

2) Except wars don’t work that way. See many many many wars throughout history. Or for fictional ones take the entire one through Game of Thrones. Just because there is a greater threat doesn’t mean current hostilities abate, we shake hands, and then gang up to fight a greater threat. Lore wise the three factions even ignored the threat of Molag Bal well into their war. See the entire main storyline of the base game and why all three factions didn’t even send their forces to Coldharbour. Instead you had the Mages and Fighters Guild do it.

3) Every single RPG that has a flee mechanic has you run from battle, thus ending it. You didn’t kill anyone. If you return in modern ones their health is restored. And in real life you can retreat but so far until the enemy stops their advance, returns to where they are strongest.

spartaxoxo

Iccotak wrote: »

I see this thrown around a lot; this idea that people asking for this just don’t go do the Harder Content.

At the same time they also say: “you’re just used to Veteran content, don’t expect overland to cater to you”

So which one is it?

Why are you acting as though Overland and Dungeons/Trials are the same to try to make it seem like people are inconsistent? What an awful bad faith question.

"Nobody uses dragons" is in no way contradicted by "vet dungeons are popular with endgame players."

trackdemon5512

Iccotak wrote: »

Hallothiel wrote: »

Will state this again: do you not think that if this was profitable, it would have been implemented by now?

The bottom line is this is a business based on making profit, and whilst it can indulge some suggestions, it won’t if there is no profit in it.

Well maintaining a healthy playerbase for starters is good for profit

High cost of developing a feature that’s not used or doesn’t draw new/old players in a way that doesn’t recoup the cost of investment cuts into profits.

Why spend or invest if the return on said investment won’t yield dividends? Why spend hundreds of thousands or millions on account transfers if in the end cash made from such would never ever cover the cost of making it happen?

Elsonso

Hallothiel wrote: »

Will state this again: do you not think that if this was profitable, it would have been implemented by now?

Possibly. It is a bellwether, but not definitive. They have many ideas, some may even reap nice rewards, but they cannot do all of them at the same time. Something has to come first, second, etc...

My feeling is that when we hit one of these things with a question, Rich will respond with a deflective answer, if he does not just ignore the question. He cannot say they are doing it, and he cannot say they are not doing it. He is not going to be deceptive in his answer. This gets studios in trouble.

When we ask about veteran overland content, he does not ignore it, and he does not deflect. He launches into a justification for not doing it by telling us about the past and how they already did something like that and it did not work. I feel that this is a more reliable bellwether (still not definitive) that it is not something they are looking at doing.

I really like "option 3" from above, although that was not the first time it was mentioned. Roaming world bosses, preferably something tuned to not be too easy to solo, yet within that range.

summ0004

spartaxoxo wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

It makes sense for games to evolve and change as markets, competition and customers needs change in order to stop stagnation and freshen things up and you cannot simply compare launch success with present success and then expect it to go forward in a linear fashion with no change.

They actually have made quite a few changes. But those changes have largely not been utilized. A lot of people say they want vet overland and they like certain content, but then they don't actually go and play it.

Compare Dolmens to Dragons/Harrowstorms
Compare Coldharbour's public dungeon to Silent Halls in Blackwood
Compare the guar boss in base game to Kung Fu Kitty.

I think people prefer the difficulty in the actual story quests and bosses rather than publc dungeons and harrowstorms etc, although its nice to get both.

I havent purchased Blackwood because ive felt disengaged with the quest content in the past, so cant comment on its difficulty and whether its improved.

WhyMustItBe

SilverBride wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

As for Rich Lamberts comments, one person can not be all knowing and all seeing either, and he would be wise to be open minded to the player base too especially as things do not stay the same in the MMO market forever especially with new competition being released. If the fix to get more players or retain dissatisfied players is an easy one too implement, without affecting the players who are happy, then it would be wise to at least research and consider this.

Rich has access to statistics. He can see what content is being utilized and by how many. He can also compare how successful ESO was in the past and after any changes that were made. These are much more accurate indicators than the forums.

He's not wrong though. Even with all the data in the world the conclusions one person draws are only as good as the assumptions they make going in. That is why it is important to consider the data from multiple perspectives. Because humans are imperfect creatures.

This is known as the "data in a vacuum" fallacy. If you strictly look at the data and not the larger context it occurs within, it is likely that you will completely misinterpret the results. Consider the classic Allegory of the Cave:

"In the allegory, Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them and give names to these shadows. The shadows are the prisoners' reality, but are not accurate representations of the real world."

Now, consider the assumptions being made regarding more difficult content.

1) That the reason "no one played veteran zones" (which is demonstrably false since I am someone and I played them) was solely due to them being "too difficult."

This assumption is a shadow because, as many have already stated, one of the primary reasons given was actually faction loyalty in a game originally billed as a major faction war campaign, and not wanting to play a hero for the quests in another faction's zones. Also, the fact that there was enough content from doing your own faction, guild quests, and grinding to hit max level easily without setting foot in the other zones. Why are these facts not considered?

2) The game's current popularity is due to easier content.

This is a shadow because it completely ignores the reality of a massive global pandemic that has seen ALL gaming numbers spike radically due to so many people being stuck indoors. It also underplays many of the other legitimate achievements of the game in the past years, including things like the sticker book, more activities, new skill trees, better graphics, and better performance. Why are these facts not considered?

The answer: Because one man's interpretation of the data from 7 years ago is never going to give the whole picture.

We should absolutely keep an open mind about customer feedback, especially when it comes to an OPTION. An option risks nothing, because it takes nothing away. I think people fixate too much on what one or two devs have said, and not enough on the actual merits of the suggestion.