800k people don't seem to mind difficult overworld

trackdemon5512

Iccotak wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Turns out if the gameplay is boring or not fun, then people have a less favorable view of the story.

This is an action rpg. If gameplay is truly irrelevant to the story then you might as well just put on a movie.

Boring is an opinion. I personally do not find overland the least bit boring. The gameplay in overland is just what it should be for what overland is... the base game and story for all players of all skill levels and experience.

So why should an inexperienced newcomer or casual players enjoyment of the story come at the expense of the enjoyment of more experienced players?

Sure, it’s doable by everyone - but is it Fun?
No one here is saying the content cannot be done. What they’re saying is that the gameplay of that content is boring.

Back in 2014 you found the gameplay not fun - that was your subjective take on the experience as well as many others. They made changes to make it more accessible.

Now it’s more fun for you in your subjective opinion.

You and others are satisfied with Story Bosses / Overland so therefore everyone else should be satisfied?

What makes your subjective fun more important than mine?

Because it gets the bills paid and keeps the lights on.

summ0004

Elsonso wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

And gameplay is part of the story experience.
Turns out if the gameplay is boring or not fun, then people have a less favorable view of the story.

And there is game play as part of the story experience.

If you think the final bosses are boring, then I have to ask what it is about ESO that makes you stick around?

The main thing is hope.

People obviously enjoy other aspects of the game hence there would be no point in sticking around, but you can enjoy something and get annoyed by another thing all at the same time.

CP5

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Turns out if the gameplay is boring or not fun, then people have a less favorable view of the story.

This is an action rpg. If gameplay is truly irrelevant to the story then you might as well just put on a movie.

Boring is an opinion. I personally do not find overland the least bit boring. The gameplay in overland is just what it should be for what overland is... the base game and story for all players of all skill levels and experience.

So why should an inexperienced newcomer or casual players enjoyment of the story come at the expense of the enjoyment of more experienced players?

Sure, it’s doable by everyone - but is it Fun?
No one here is saying the content cannot be done. What they’re saying is that the gameplay of that content is boring.

Back in 2014 you found the gameplay not fun - that was your subjective take on the experience as well as many others. They made changes to make it more accessible.

Now it’s more fun for you in your subjective opinion.

You and others are satisfied with Story Bosses / Overland so therefore everyone else should be satisfied?

What makes your subjective fun more important than mine?

Because it gets the bills paid and keeps the lights on.

So leaving a big, gaping, hole in the game that lets likely a sizable number of players grow dissatisfied and leave is perfectly fine to keep? Plenty of people in the trial groups I run with don't log in for anything but those, plenty of newer players who expect the game to raise challenges to them as their skills grow will only be meet by beginner zone after beginner zone. Let's just let people that expect gameplay out of the game to leave, that'll pay the bills.

trackdemon5512

CP5 wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Turns out if the gameplay is boring or not fun, then people have a less favorable view of the story.

This is an action rpg. If gameplay is truly irrelevant to the story then you might as well just put on a movie.

Boring is an opinion. I personally do not find overland the least bit boring. The gameplay in overland is just what it should be for what overland is... the base game and story for all players of all skill levels and experience.

So why should an inexperienced newcomer or casual players enjoyment of the story come at the expense of the enjoyment of more experienced players?

Sure, it’s doable by everyone - but is it Fun?
No one here is saying the content cannot be done. What they’re saying is that the gameplay of that content is boring.

Back in 2014 you found the gameplay not fun - that was your subjective take on the experience as well as many others. They made changes to make it more accessible.

Now it’s more fun for you in your subjective opinion.

You and others are satisfied with Story Bosses / Overland so therefore everyone else should be satisfied?

What makes your subjective fun more important than mine?

Because it gets the bills paid and keeps the lights on.

So leaving a big, gaping, hole in the game that lets likely a sizable number of players grow dissatisfied and leave is perfectly fine to keep? Plenty of people in the trial groups I run with don't log in for anything but those, plenty of newer players who expect the game to raise challenges to them as their skills grow will only be meet by beginner zone after beginner zone. Let's just let people that expect gameplay out of the game to leave, that'll pay the bills.

Meh every business has an ebb and flow. New customers come in and older customers leave. They leave from frustration or boredom or inability to pay a subscription or new things come around. As long as the game brings in more than it loses it’s good for business.

Now whatever that crowd wants, in this case variable difficulties, someone must have crunched the numbers and found that any loss of players dissatisfied with such a direction is cancelled out by customer growth and paying retention.

ZOS long ago found it keeps a lot more of its players with casual content than designing for the hardcore.

It’s not hard to see why. Casual players are more likely to subscribe, not pay attention, complete content slowly, and be happy. Versus the hardcore who quickly complete content, scream about canceling their subscriptions over proposed changes, and constantly demand more despite paying the same.

CP5

So what you're saying is it's perfectly fine to lose players to something you in particular don't care about. Not good for the long-term health of the game, is all I'm going to say. Who wants to keep around players who are willing to learn and engage with the content you make when you can focus on, as was mentioned earlier, the players who only stick around a few months.

spartaxoxo

Iccotak wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Read that again; I never made out Overland to be the same as Dungeons/Trials.

Yes. You did. I stated that "nobody uses the existing hard overland content, like dragons"

And that is what you compared to people making the argument that people should stick to instanced content.

That is making it seem like both responses were about the same thing when they were not. And what is worse is you made this argument while only quoting me, which makes not just the arguments sound inconsistent but makes it sound I like myself said two different things about the same content.

I did not.

I said nobody is really using Dragons.

And that people who are in the middle tier doing the easy instanced content should do more of the harder instanced content.

Those are not at all contradictory. They aren't even about the same thing. And both could be reduced to "people who like hard content should actually use it more often," if you really wanted to strip all context into the most barebones reductive reading possible.

It is not remotely inconsistent.

1. I addressed your point on Dragons/Harrowstorms in overland in an edit, I also pointed out there was some miscommunication on my part - go read the response again.

The edit response also points out the flaw in your logic.

2. This is not some deliberate sabotage. I focused on a specific sentiment that I disagree with. Even taking your point on Dolmens- I still disagree with it.

It's not a "flaw;" world events ARE overland content. Nobody is asking for ONLY story modes. They are asking for Overland in general, and world events are part of that.

If all you cared about was the story quest, you'd just ask for the story mobs to be buffed instead. But the main proposal is for Overland in general to be harder. So delves, quests, public dungeons, world bosses, and world events are all fair game to be discussed and compared. I compared like content with like content as well, the easy world event and the hard ones.

spartaxoxo

Iccotak wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Also I'm gonna be honest here, that what's challenging for me is not doable for most new and casual players. And I am not even elite. I couldn't do Godslayer. And if it's not a challenge for me, then it's not gonna feel like anything but a slog.

So yea, I think new players being able to do the content at all outweighs the fun of my being challenged. Because it's not possible for it to be both a challenge for me and able to be done my a newbie. And story is supposed to be for everyone.

If it wasn't for the bleed, I could probably solo the dragons. I have soloed a Harrowstorm, back when the ghosts were more controllable. I should try that again at some point.

It’s not about challenge it’s about the gameplay not being a slog, which can be achieved for Story bosses going forward as they are instanced content.

If the gameplay is still boringly easy but longer, that's not going to make it not a slog. You got to get the mechanics to matter. They don't have to necessarily be new ones but you have to be forced to respect them because they are a challenge. The problem is that any mechanic that isn't just forced immunity like Rada al Saran that is strong enough to force me to care, is going to be impossible for some low level new player. And story quests are beginner content meant for all skill levels.

ZOS has retained players quite well. Player count has increased every year since One Tamriel. Only way that happens is if they are retaining well because this game is old, new accounts aren't gonna be generated at the old rate. This year may see a decrease due to the Pandemic restrictions easing and New World.

CP5

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Also I'm gonna be honest here, that what's challenging for me is not doable for most new and casual players. And I am not even elite. I couldn't do Godslayer. And if it's not a challenge for me, then it's not gonna feel like anything but a slog.

So yea, I think new players being able to do the content at all outweighs the fun of my being challenged. Because it's not possible for it to be both a challenge for me and able to be done my a newbie. And story is supposed to be for everyone.

If it wasn't for the bleed, I could probably solo the dragons. I have soloed a Harrowstorm, back when the ghosts were more controllable. I should try that again at some point.

It’s not about challenge it’s about the gameplay not being a slog, which can be achieved for Story bosses going forward as they are instanced content.

If the gameplay is still boringly easy but longer, that's not going to make it not a slog. You got to get the mechanics to matter. They don't have to necessarily be new ones but you have to be forced to respect them because they are a challenge. The problem is that any mechanic that isn't just forced immunity like Rada al Saran that is strong enough to force me to care, is going to be impossible for some low level new player.

ZOS has retained players quite well. Player count has increased every year since One Tamriel. Only way that happens is if they are retaining well because this game is old, new accounts aren't gonna be generated at the old rate. This year may see a decrease due to the Pandemic restrictions easing and New World.

First, if the difficulty is optional, which is a point I think all proposals tend to agree with, "going to be impossible for some low level new player" isn't an issue. If they opt in, find it too difficult, they can opt out, or challenge themselves to overcome the challenge.

As for player counts, ZOS stringing together nostalgia content, Morrowind, Skyrim, Oblivion, that'll get people in the doors. But keeping people? Sure, plenty can find things they enjoy, but with pvp being in an iffy state, and people who are looking for more engaging content outside of running the same trials and dungeons forever, those two groups have less and less reason to stick around, and nostalgia isn't going to change that. You don't ignore big issues like that and just shrug, saying 'it isn't important to me therefore it shouldn't be addressed.'

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

First, if the difficulty is optional, which is a point I think all proposals tend to agree with, "going to be impossible for some low level new player" isn't an issue. If they opt in, find it too difficult, they can opt out, or challenge themselves to overcome the challenge.

"Would it be an option just to give people the choice? It is not as simple as just flip a switch and make things more difficult. There is a TON of work and then as Lucky mentioned earlier you have to also incentivize that. Like just making something more difficult for no reason, if you’re not going to get anything out of it why do it? The satisfaction's there sure but players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time." - Rich Lambert

trackdemon5512

CP5 wrote: »

So what you're saying is it's perfectly fine to lose players to something you in particular don't care about. Not good for the long-term health of the game, is all I'm going to say. Who wants to keep around players who are willing to learn and engage with the content you make when you can focus on, as was mentioned earlier, the players who only stick around a few months.

Let’s look at a similar product. Let’s look at Netflix. For both products individuals pay a subscription fee, month to month, for content. Netflix started out with DVDs and movies being sent home. Over time as technology improved it moved to streaming and focusing on distributing television show type content.

Now are there still those that want DVDs mailed? Sure. Those that want movies? Of course. But the money, the real money is made from engaging with those consumers who want the casual shows to watch over and over again with occasional new content. They keep their subscriptions. Why would Netflix invest significantly in keeping subscribers who want to keep using DVDs and watching movies when they’re more likely to abandon the platform and don’t contribute more?

Iccotak

CP5 wrote: »

So what you're saying is it's perfectly fine to lose players to something you in particular don't care about. Not good for the long-term health of the game, is all I'm going to say. Who wants to keep around players who are willing to learn and engage with the content you make when you can focus on, as was mentioned earlier, the players who only stick around a few months.

or far far less

kargen27

Vhozek wrote: »

kargen27 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.

That is two bad ideas wrapped into one. Overland PvP won't work because the zones were not designed for it. No choke points and no areas of interest to draw players for PvP. Debuffing characters (something I was suggesting through consumption of food and potion for a long time) doesn't really make the fights harder just longer.

You don't need choke points or areas of interest. Just let the difficulty increase because the other dangers in the open world are other players. How much more difficult could it get than that? Debuffing players vs mobs is a great idea because it's not like you're adding more HP to mobs. It will make fights longer, sure, but because they're harder not because they're dragged out because the enemy is a damage sponge. The result would be the same as NW except with a much bigger world because of ESOs expansions, and actual voice acted lore and quests. It's almost as if it would be better than NW minus the cool tree chopping.

New World was created for open world PvP and choke points abound in that game.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

First, if the difficulty is optional, which is a point I think all proposals tend to agree with, "going to be impossible for some low level new player" isn't an issue. If they opt in, find it too difficult, they can opt out, or challenge themselves to overcome the challenge.

"Would it be an option just to give people the choice? It is not as simple as just flip a switch and make things more difficult. There is a TON of work and then as Lucky mentioned earlier you have to also incentivize that. Like just making something more difficult for no reason, if you’re not going to get anything out of it why do it? The satisfaction's there sure but players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time." - Rich Lambert

Silver, I know you love that quote, I was half watching his stream and when I heard him talking on it, I knew people here would be loving it. But seriously, every single dungeon uses instancing to provide different levels of difficulty, all areas of pvp do this as well to a greater extent. When the game first launched, zones did this as well. Yes, it would take effort, I've never denied that, but just like companions it would be something some people would enjoy and others wouldn't care for.

Or should ESO have never changed to begin with, since trying to improve the game now is apparently such a bad thing? Should the old gold and silver zones remained as was, and players who were dissatisfied be told off to do things like "go back to starter zones if you want easier content" or any other version of the counterarguments being thrown around now.

ZOS has completely changed the game several times over, and acting like them doing it again is a dooms day situation is just preparing yourself for stress later. In the beginning, zones had different difficulty instances and dungeons were all set to one difficulty. That changed, and could again, and clearly there is a demand for it since every time this topic comes around more people join in on both sides, though one side seems to not even want the other to have the chance.

peacenote

What's interesting to me about this discussion is that it seems to be leaving out a key component of the root cause of the issue... power creep. The new cp was supposed to help with that but I don't think it has.

In the beginning of ESO, we didn't steamroll over content like we do now. But the gap has gotten SO BIG between entry level content and end game content that we have bigger issues than overworld being underwhelming to some. We have players not learning how the game works or understanding mechanics who then get frustrated when they try anything hard. Normal dungeons, overland, and even earlier vet dungeons aren't teaching people what it is like to wipe or analyze a fight.

Generally speaking, I think the easy overland content suits newer players, players just here for the ES story/experience, players with lots of alts who do everything on all of them, and experienced players who mostly PvP or PvE vet trials but are in overland simply to get something (gold, mats, event tickets) and therefore are glad the content is quick. That really IS a good portion of the playerbase who probably likes things the way they are. I mean, just imagine how long it would take new players to get to newer content if they went in order and each mob in overland took 20 min to kill, soloing.

I have seen threads, though, where experienced MMO players new to ESO leave quickly because overland is too boring and they don't want to level to have to experience a challenge. I myself wish that at least the bosses at the end of quest lines were harder. It's so anti climactic.

In my opinion, sliders or harder shards aren't the answer. ZoS tends to take a sledgehammer approach but personally I think they should slowwwwly increase resistances, hp, or something to the regular overland mobs until they find the sweet spot where it is closer to how mobs felt at launch but not so crazy that even with optimized builds grinding takes 2 - 3 times longer. With the Armory, it will be even easier for low dps builds to swap back and forth if they wanted to keep from having their time-spent-per-activity impacted too much.

Then I think ZoS should incorporate some of the ideas in this thread and others to make things less monotonous. Elite mobs are a good idea. Making JUST the end bosses of quest lines more challenging is a good idea. Bolster those guys enough so you have to at least know how to dodge or block or something.

I don't think overland should be made a LOT harder but I think we need to ask ourselves... what would be the best move for longevity of the game? What changes might help prepare newer players for harder content or keep new players who like a challenge from abandoning the game before they have barely scratched the surface? The answer may not be what YOU want or what I want for our personal enjoyment of where we are today in the game. After doing a delve 200,000 times I personally don't want it to be harder... I want to get in and get out as fast as possible! But I think considering the broader perspective as opposed to polling people on what they each like, thinking only of themselves, might be best in the long run.

And from that view, I truly think that any solution which fragments the population is not a good one. I think the gap between overland and other content is too wide and should be addressed before overland mobs can all be killed by one light attack from a level 3 toon. And I think, knowing that ZoS doesn't have unlimited resources, new content, overhauls, updates, or and features that everyone can enjoy is a much better pursuit for the devs than making identical - albeit "harder" - copies of very old content. There have to be better ways to go.

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

Silver, I know you love that quote, I was half watching his stream and when I heard him talking on it, I knew people here would be loving it.

Yes, I do because it gives me confidence that Rich sees what is best for the game... a game that I love and don't want to see set on a path to ruin because some players find overland boring.

CP5 wrote: »

ZOS has completely changed the game several times over, and acting like them doing it again is a dooms day situation is just preparing yourself for stress later. In the beginning, zones had different difficulty instances and dungeons were all set to one difficulty. That changed, and could again, and clearly there is a demand for it since every time this topic comes around more people join in on both sides, though one side seems to not even want the other to have the chance.

Actually they only completely changed the game once when they introduced One Tamriel. Everything else are tweaks to enhance the experience.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

Silver, I know you love that quote, I was half watching his stream and when I heard him talking on it, I knew people here would be loving it.

Yes, I do because it gives me confidence that Rich sees what is best for the game... a game that I love and don't want to see set on a path to ruin because some players find overland boring.

CP5 wrote: »

ZOS has completely changed the game several times over, and acting like them doing it again is a dooms day situation is just preparing yourself for stress later. In the beginning, zones had different difficulty instances and dungeons were all set to one difficulty. That changed, and could again, and clearly there is a demand for it since every time this topic comes around more people join in on both sides, though one side seems to not even want the other to have the chance.

Actually they only completely changed the game once when they introduced One Tamriel. Everything else are tweaks to enhance the experience.

Things you like = good changes to a game you love.

Things you don't like = path of ruin.

If the game hadn't changed to make overland more approachable, you likely would have never came back. Don't you think, that maybe, just maybe, some people are in the opposite boat and want engaging gameplay in their game, and to not be told to "go back to vet content if you want more challenging gameplay" every time they raise their concerns?

Arguments to 'just go back to vet content' would be the same as telling past you to just 'go back to starter zones'.

Arguments to 'just self nerf' would be the same as saying 'just slot meta skills and use a more meta defined build'.

Claims that giving people the option to engage in a difficulty they want would divide the community are applicable both ways, but as is the community divide that comes from an overly simplistic overland being the only option is that many players don't bother logging in. But we can't give them a place to explore the world and feel engaged, else who will come to the aid of the other players begging for help.

Rich explicitly commented on Gold, Silver, and Old Craglorn, a dated version of difficulty people generally don't care for. Padding the stats on incompetent mobs isn't what people want, and since that is what he referenced, I just feel he doesn't know what people are actually asking for.

summ0004

As it seems people are very divided about having the WHOLE of overland having a vet version and its getting nowhere, would both sides be happy(or not opposed) to the idea of just having OPTIONAL harder quest bosses as a compromise? And perhaps a few more elite mobs in the overworld that weaker players can easily avoid if they want too.

That wouldnt require separate servers, splitting player bases and some people can have the option of more engaging combat and the other camp can keep their easy boss fights.

This way nobody loses out.

I would like harder overland of course, but im prepared to settle for a compromise but i wouldnt be happy if nothing changed and things just carried on exactly as they are with no evolution of the game.

Its clear there are more than enough people who feel strongly enough to warrant some sort of change, and player retention in the long run is good for the image and reputation of the game.

SilverBride

summ0004 wrote: »

As it seems people are very divided about having the WHOLE of overland having a vet version and its getting nowhere, would both sides be happy(or not opposed) to the idea of just having OPTIONAL harder quest bosses as a compromise? And perhaps a few more elite mobs in the overworld that weaker players can easily avoid if they want too.

I support a scroll or flag that would increase the difficulty of story bosses for those who would like that.

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

If the game hadn't changed to make overland more approachable, you likely would have never came back. Don't you think, that maybe, just maybe, some people are in the opposite boat and want engaging gameplay in their game, and to not be told to "go back to vet content if you want more challenging gameplay" every time they raise their concerns?

ZoS are the ones who made the decision to change the game and introduce One Tamriel. I seriously doubt they would have put in all the time, manpower and expense to make this change unless they saw a reason and a need.

CP5 wrote: »

Rich explicitly commented on Gold, Silver, and Old Craglorn, a dated version of difficulty people generally don't care for. Padding the stats on incompetent mobs isn't what people want, and since that is what he referenced, I just feel he doesn't know what people are actually asking for.

Rich never referenced "padding the stats on incompetent mobs" in the stream I referred to. He was asked about veteran delves and quests, then an option for these. His answers were appropriate to those questions.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Also I'm gonna be honest here, that what's challenging for me is not doable for most new and casual players. And I am not even elite. I couldn't do Godslayer. And if it's not a challenge for me, then it's not gonna feel like anything but a slog.

So yea, I think new players being able to do the content at all outweighs the fun of my being challenged. Because it's not possible for it to be both a challenge for me and able to be done my a newbie. And story is supposed to be for everyone.

If it wasn't for the bleed, I could probably solo the dragons. I have soloed a Harrowstorm, back when the ghosts were more controllable. I should try that again at some point.

It’s not about challenge it’s about the gameplay not being a slog, which can be achieved for Story bosses going forward as they are instanced content.

If the gameplay is still boringly easy but longer, that's not going to make it not a slog. You got to get the mechanics to matter. They don't have to necessarily be new ones but you have to be forced to respect them because they are a challenge. The problem is that any mechanic that isn't just forced immunity like Rada al Saran that is strong enough to force me to care, is going to be impossible for some low level new player.

ZOS has retained players quite well. Player count has increased every year since One Tamriel. Only way that happens is if they are retaining well because this game is old, new accounts aren't gonna be generated at the old rate. This year may see a decrease due to the Pandemic restrictions easing and New World.

First, if the difficulty is optional, which is a point I think all proposals tend to agree with, "going to be impossible for some low level new player" isn't an issue. If they opt in, find it too difficult, they can opt out, or challenge themselves to overcome the challenge.

As for player counts, ZOS stringing together nostalgia content, Morrowind, Skyrim, Oblivion, that'll get people in the doors. But keeping people? Sure, plenty can find things they enjoy, but with pvp being in an iffy state, and people who are looking for more engaging content outside of running the same trials and dungeons forever, those two groups have less and less reason to stick around, and nostalgia isn't going to change that. You don't ignore big issues like that and just shrug, saying 'it isn't important to me therefore it shouldn't be addressed.'

The players have literally been retained. This game isn't flooded with new players, it's old. It keeps increasing players because it's keeping players at a high enough rate that the new ones coming aren't just replacing the old ones to keep levels steady, but actually adding to the population.

Also it does matter the difficulty because vet overland isn't going to happen.

Nagastani

Elsonso wrote: »

Nagastani wrote: »

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.

I think I am going to disagree. What ZOS did is move "progression" out of the traditional MMO model where you always need to move on to a new area. In ESO, the progression is spread out across the whole game and is a mix of player development and character development. The progression goes from overland up to trials with the point that the player, and character, get better with practice and advance to the next thing when they feel ready.

There are always going to be players that hit the ceiling when it comes to progression. The traditional MMO just slaps new zone content at the end and increases the level cap. The problem with this is that it turns the game into an Ikea with monsters. New players have to chase progression through the whole game to get to the end. Sometimes, the game offers a short cut in the form of a level boost. I see this as the future for New World, which is why it is very important to get into the game and level up now.

ZOS cannot just slap a new zone on the end and increase the level cap. They actually have to make the content harder independent of the zone players are in, which means dungeons and trials with veteran and hard mode settings.

As for the comment about PVP and Cyrodiil and being friendly and all that. ESO is a 7 year old game. As I recall, it was like that in the early days when people were learning. Give New World a chance. It is still too new for the players to be rude and salty.

On a side note, I do notice that open world PVP is almost non-existent on my New World server. In my 25 hours in-game since launch, I have not seen anyone engage in open-world PVP. I saw it when I played pre-launch, though. This lack of PVP is probably because most players are not flagged for PVP.w

That's alright you know, it will never be perfect and even ESO I liked better overall at its start.

So I don't think we really disagree too much because yeah over time mobs will become easier but there's always something that's not simple, you know. However, what we have here is its like over night when One Tam dropped it's like they flipped a switch and now there's no challenge at all, no progressive difficulty. None. I have no reason to care how I setup my skills because there is like nothing to sufficiently threaten me hah.

With that said, I think progression implemented properly is implied right, not expressed. So I'm certainly not advocating adding zones or whichever because we already have Public Dungeons. But if there's an enemy in the game then there should be a purpose to having it. Like the comment I made about those silly battle droid in the prequels... seriously why even have them if they're so stupidly easy to kill? How do they add value... how do they make us think... how do they modify the tone of the film... and in short... they don't. So why have them if not but to sell toys right *snicker*. Same principle applies here.

Now regarding New World. I think the lack of open PvP in this case is not a symptom of a problem but is instead what we expect to see from a healthy, more realistic PvP experience. This is like a similar discussion I had with someone else's thread on here about a month ago I think. In that conversation we were talking about adding a neutral element to PvP.

So everyone on the map does not need to get involved in the war necessarily for there to be PvP right. Generally units receive orders to do something, same goes for mercs or assassins etc. But there is no country in the world that benefits from prolonged warfare and thus, it kind of makes sense for there not to necessarily be fighting everywhere, especially all at once.

Very few are going to solo PvP but its not because they don't want to PvP its because their level is too low vs like a level 60 player where they can't do enough damage to win anyways. So this is more a sign of something else other than people not wanting to PvP. They just don't want to PvP alone and nor should they really. In groups however, this is a completely different story. In New World Most PvP is done in groups. And if you end up on the wrong side of Company Politics you won't get invited at all, so that's why its important everyone who wants to PvP in New World go in there with a sunny attitude and at least try to be fair and reasonable about things.

Nagastani

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Read that again; I never made out Overland to be the same as Dungeons/Trials.

Yes. You did. I stated that "nobody uses the existing hard overland content, like dragons"

And that is what you compared to people making the argument that people should stick to instanced content.

That is making it seem like both responses were about the same thing when they were not. And what is worse is you made this argument while only quoting me, which makes not just the arguments sound inconsistent but makes it sound I like myself said two different things about the same content.

I did not.

I said nobody is really using Dragons.

And that people who are in the middle tier doing the easy instanced content should do more of the harder instanced content.

Those are not at all contradictory. They aren't even about the same thing. And both could be reduced to "people who like hard content should actually use it more often," if you really wanted to strip all context into the most barebones reductive reading possible.

It is not remotely inconsistent.

1. I addressed your point on Dragons/Harrowstorms in overland in an edit, I also pointed out there was some miscommunication on my part - go read the response again.

The edit response also points out the flaw in your logic.

2. This is not some deliberate sabotage. I focused on a specific sentiment that I disagree with. Even taking your point on Dolmens- I still disagree with it.

It's not a "flaw;" world events ARE overland content. Nobody is asking for ONLY story modes. They are asking for Overland in general, and world events are part of that.

If all you cared about was the story quest, you'd just ask for the story mobs to be buffed instead. But the main proposal is for Overland in general to be harder. So delves, quests, public dungeons, world bosses, and world events are all fair game to be discussed and compared. I compared like content with like content as well, the easy world event and the hard ones.

Right. And the 'story mobs' do absolutely nothing to add to the story. They may as well write the story without them as they contribute -0- overall.

- I have no reason to fear or even be a little worried about fighting most Daedra. Unlike other Elder Scrolls games where they are a serious threat. Also, many Daedra enemies don't do Daedra things... they fight like drunk sailors.
- If a mob of experienced soldiers attack me they die with so little effort its hard to believe what other actors in the story says about them being a threat to begin with.
- The Molag Bal fight is so easy its stupid. I remember when that could be called a serious battle but not since it was nerfed.
- Most enemies all use the same attacks, over and over again. And it's just so boring.

spartaxoxo

peacenote wrote: »

And from that view, I truly think that any solution which fragments the population is not a good one. I think the gap between overland and other content is too wide and should be addressed before overland mobs can all be killed by one light attack from a level 3 toon. And I think, knowing that ZoS doesn't have unlimited resources, new content, overhauls, updates, or and features that everyone can enjoy is a much better pursuit for the devs than making identical - albeit "harder" - copies of very old content. There have to be better ways to go.

I think that Overland difficulty is fine as is because it's used by new players, casuals, and people who just want to quickly grab like skyshards or something most.

I personally think that content should primarily be tailored towards who is actually using it, not chasing someone who is not.

I think the playerbase largely seeks it's challenge from instanced content. Which is where I think changes really need to be made. I think the dungeons need to he made harder, their needs to be more harder solo content people can enjoy (I suggested solo dungeons for example but also think we need more solo arenas) and there needs to be more tutorials that properly introduce people to this content.

If the instanced stuff didn't go from zero challenge to 100 so quickly, I think you'd have much greater participation in hard content. I also think they need to nerf some pain points in the vet trials, not by something insane. But enough that really hardcore players could do a PUG of a trial if they were to smash their heads against the wall for several hours rather than a full team trying over the course of days to weeks.

Like look at the difficulty spike between Craglorn and even an older dlc trial like VMOL. It's genuinely insane.

The playerbase desire to do anything after that takes a massive nosedive after that level.

And I don't think it's just about teaching people how to block and interrupt. Some of that stuff requires such insanely precise timing and coordination that only people who have trained for days on it can do it.

I am not saying the achievements or leaderboards should be that way. I don't think like Godslayer should be anything other than coordinatined groups. But you shouldn't need that level of coordination just to do VSS at all.

I have played other MMOs that had healtheir raiding communities where we would sit back and play for hourw into the night chugging redbulls trying to beat something really difficult in a pickup group. You made some good friendships in those groups. And then some of the players in those groups would end up on leaderboards and stuff.

That's like completely absent in this game. Craglorn trials are a faceroll and vet dlc trials requires signups and ultra coordination and picky raid leaders telling you exactly what you must do to clear down to your gear. That in-between scene is entirely gone and I think thats a massive reason we have so many people stuck at that level trying to change story content as if quests aren't the easiest part of many games.

Parasaurolophus

The devs have teams dedicated to player feedback and usage. They know which content we play and what we don't. They even know that a lot of people run around mobs rather than fighting them, for example.

This is a pretty revealing comment by @spartaxoxo. But the fact of the matter is that fights in overland are boring and useless. We want to make them fun, important. Therefore, I believe that this will require a different approach to the development of locations. ZoS just works with what it is. So if the fights in the overland only get in the way, then it's better to just remove it.

spartaxoxo

Like I think this is more or less how I think the content progresses but there's a huge leap in terms of commitment at the top here, and even in B to A.

https://tiermaker.com/create/eso-elder-scrolls-online-content-tier-list-1225647

Iccotak

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Read that again; I never made out Overland to be the same as Dungeons/Trials.

Yes. You did. I stated that "nobody uses the existing hard overland content, like dragons"

And that is what you compared to people making the argument that people should stick to instanced content.

That is making it seem like both responses were about the same thing when they were not. And what is worse is you made this argument while only quoting me, which makes not just the arguments sound inconsistent but makes it sound I like myself said two different things about the same content.

I did not.

I said nobody is really using Dragons.

And that people who are in the middle tier doing the easy instanced content should do more of the harder instanced content.

Those are not at all contradictory. They aren't even about the same thing. And both could be reduced to "people who like hard content should actually use it more often," if you really wanted to strip all context into the most barebones reductive reading possible.

It is not remotely inconsistent.

1. I addressed your point on Dragons/Harrowstorms in overland in an edit, I also pointed out there was some miscommunication on my part - go read the response again.

The edit response also points out the flaw in your logic.

2. This is not some deliberate sabotage. I focused on a specific sentiment that I disagree with. Even taking your point on Dolmens- I still disagree with it.

It's not a "flaw;" world events ARE overland content. Nobody is asking for ONLY story modes. They are asking for Overland in general, and world events are part of that.

If all you cared about was the story quest, you'd just ask for the story mobs to be buffed instead. But the main proposal is for Overland in general to be harder. So delves, quests, public dungeons, world bosses, and world events are all fair game to be discussed and compared. I compared like content with like content as well, the easy world event and the hard ones.

World Events are explicitly designed for Groups.
What people are talking about is general exploration and questing which is designed to be easily doable by one player.

They are two different things. World Events and Bosses are isolated areas where gameplay suddenly matters.

But what people are generally complaining about is solo questing and exploration. The combat you encounter in the wild.

————————————————
Which is why I proposed:

Zone Elites & Mini-Bosses
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/588919/zone-elites-mini-bosses

Repeatable Story w/ Solo Dungeons & Difficultly setting
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/588929/repeatable-main-story-w-solo-dungeons-difficulty-setting

(Actually quite a few are asking for a hard mode for ONLY Story - it frequently came up in that poll that was linked earlier)
————————————————

I addressed your point about dolmens getting harder in each new chapter/dlc and how that’s actually a flawed design move.

Also if players can go anywhere than why make world events in chapter/dlc the avenue of progression?

Isn’t that jarring for new players to start in something like Greymoor Harrowstorms but then find Dark Anchors which are much easier?

What about power creep?

Also If we’re talking about separate instances; the difficulty of Dragons & Harrowstorms may be more appropriate to a Veteran instance.

Because making the rest of the zone cater to solo casual / beginner but then making all the world events cater to endgame players just feels like…not a good compromise

Iccotak

spartaxoxo wrote: »

peacenote wrote: »

And from that view, I truly think that any solution which fragments the population is not a good one. I think the gap between overland and other content is too wide and should be addressed before overland mobs can all be killed by one light attack from a level 3 toon. And I think, knowing that ZoS doesn't have unlimited resources, new content, overhauls, updates, or and features that everyone can enjoy is a much better pursuit for the devs than making identical - albeit "harder" - copies of very old content. There have to be better ways to go.

I think that Overland difficulty is fine as is because it's used by new players, casuals, and people who just want to quickly grab like skyshards or something most.

I personally think that content should primarily be tailored towards who is actually using it, not chasing someone who is not.

I think the playerbase largely seeks it's challenge from instanced content. Which is where I think changes really need to be made. I think the dungeons need to he made harder, their needs to be more harder solo content people can enjoy (I suggested solo dungeons for example but also think we need more solo arenas) and there needs to be more tutorials that properly introduce people to this content.

If the instanced stuff didn't go from zero challenge to 100 so quickly, I think you'd have much greater participation in hard content. I also think they need to nerf some pain points in the vet trials, not by something insane. But enough that really hardcore players could do a PUG of a trial if they were to smash their heads against the wall for several hours rather than a full team trying over the course of days to weeks.

Like look at the difficulty spike between Craglorn and even an older dlc trial like VMOL. It's genuinely insane.

The playerbase desire to do anything after that takes a massive nosedive after that level.

And I don't think it's just about teaching people how to block and interrupt. Some of that stuff requires such insanely precise timing and coordination that only people who have trained for days on it can do it.

I am not saying the achievements or leaderboards should be that way. I don't think like Godslayer should be anything other than coordinatined groups. But you shouldn't need that level of coordination just to do VSS at all.

I have played other MMOs that had healtheir raiding communities where we would sit back and play for hourw into the night chugging redbulls trying to beat something really difficult in a pickup group. You made some good friendships in those groups. And then some of the players in those groups would end up on leaderboards and stuff.

That's like completely absent in this game. Craglorn trials are a faceroll and vet dlc trials requires signups and ultra coordination and picky raid leaders telling you exactly what you must do to clear down to your gear. That in-between scene is entirely gone and I think thats a massive reason we have so many people stuck at that level trying to change story content as if quests aren't the easiest part of many games.

I agree with the overall sentiment that the difficultly spike between content is insane and they should work on that.
Especially considering how many players start in the latest content.
There could be a better & healthier spectrum of difficultly for sure.

——————————————————

But I disagree with the final sentiment.
1. A lot of games have their gameplay get harder as the story progresses. It’s actually a standard practice.

2. most people’s reasons I’ve seen complain about the main story is that gameplay doesn’t live up to the narrative. I’ve seen both casual and endgame players voice this sentiment.

Go through that poll and you’ll see quite a few are fine with the state of overland but find the Main Story Boss gameplay lacking

SilverBride

Iccotak wrote: »

Repeatable Story w/ Solo Dungeons & Difficultly setting

Once the story has been completed it's done for that character. This idea would completely ruin immersion, which is what some have stated is the problem they are trying to fix.

But more importantly it would turn overland into a place to easily farm vet drops without doing the veteran content that is already provided, with no competition from others because it would be soloable for high CP and experienced players.

Iccotak

SilverBride wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Repeatable Story w/ Solo Dungeons & Difficultly setting

Once the story has been completed it's done for that character. This idea would completely ruin immersion, which is what some have stated is the problem they are trying to fix.

But more importantly it would turn overland into a place to easily farm vet drops without doing the veteran content that is already provided, with no competition from others because it would be soloable for high CP and experienced players.

Firstly, I disagree with the idea that it “completely ruins immersion”. Lots of games do it and it works just fine.

And I’m not going to realistically expect ZOS to invest resources into making Story Bosses with optionally harder / better mechanics if it can only be fought once.

[snip]

[Edit for Baiting.]

spartaxoxo

Iccotak wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Read that again; I never made out Overland to be the same as Dungeons/Trials.

Yes. You did. I stated that "nobody uses the existing hard overland content, like dragons"

And that is what you compared to people making the argument that people should stick to instanced content.

That is making it seem like both responses were about the same thing when they were not. And what is worse is you made this argument while only quoting me, which makes not just the arguments sound inconsistent but makes it sound I like myself said two different things about the same content.

I did not.

I said nobody is really using Dragons.

And that people who are in the middle tier doing the easy instanced content should do more of the harder instanced content.

Those are not at all contradictory. They aren't even about the same thing. And both could be reduced to "people who like hard content should actually use it more often," if you really wanted to strip all context into the most barebones reductive reading possible.

It is not remotely inconsistent.

1. I addressed your point on Dragons/Harrowstorms in overland in an edit, I also pointed out there was some miscommunication on my part - go read the response again.

The edit response also points out the flaw in your logic.

2. This is not some deliberate sabotage. I focused on a specific sentiment that I disagree with. Even taking your point on Dolmens- I still disagree with it.

It's not a "flaw;" world events ARE overland content. Nobody is asking for ONLY story modes. They are asking for Overland in general, and world events are part of that.

If all you cared about was the story quest, you'd just ask for the story mobs to be buffed instead. But the main proposal is for Overland in general to be harder. So delves, quests, public dungeons, world bosses, and world events are all fair game to be discussed and compared. I compared like content with like content as well, the easy world event and the hard ones.

World Events are explicitly designed for Groups.
What people are talking about is general exploration and questing which is designed to be easily doable by one player.

They are two different things. World Events and Bosses are isolated areas where gameplay suddenly matters.

Except many people over the years have expressed world events and bosses as a breath of fresh air and intergal to the Overland experience. Plenty of people praise them as one of the only good things about the Overland experience. When I suggested Dragons scale with the number of players, I got a lot of pushback who considered them one of the only parts of Overland they liked and said it was easy enough as it was without nerfing them.

Just because you're laser focused on story bosses doesn't mean everyone else is, and it doesn't make that viewpoint flawed. World events are overland. And world bosses and world events are where devs are injecting difficulty into overland. And I don't consider dragons/Harrowstorms as successful experiment because they aren't being used much.