800k people don't seem to mind difficult overworld

kargen27

CP5 wrote: »

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.

You keep trying to equate trials and dungeons to overland. They are different. It's like saying we should peel apples because banana peels taste bad. PvP has the exact same NPCs in every instance. So that isn't what you are looking for in relation to overland. Early on zones did also but not because of different mechanics. It was because the zones were not scaled to players as they are now. That is what changed. They didn't go in and remove a bunch of mechanics they can put back.

Companions didn't change existing content and didn't divide the player base. They were part of new content. Your asking for old content to be changed. ZoS has changed the game, they are still changing it. They are tweaking an armor set that is wreaking havoc in Cyrodiil as we speak. Other than One Tamriel they aren't doing a complete rework of old content. You have already said just making the encounters harder through harder hits and more health on the mobs isn't what you want. Well that is what the zoned levels were before One Tamriel. You want different mechanics and that was not in the game for overland zones.

spartaxoxo

Nagastani wrote: »

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.

This is why I support a challenge banner for story bosses, and also upping the difficulty of the Overland quest bosses to maybe around the difficulty of the public dungeon bosses rather than like delve bosses.

If the minions were fodder but the story bosses were better, I think it would help with that a lot.

trackdemon5512

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Nagastani wrote: »

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.

This is why I support a challenge banner for story bosses, and also upping the difficulty of the Overland quest bosses to maybe around the difficulty of the public dungeon bosses rather than like delve bosses.

If the minions were fodder but the story bosses were better, I think it would help with that a lot.

Yeah but then considering that players can run through a story boss once per character and there is no way to incentivize a reason for doing so it’ll never happen.

I mean you have to agree, adding optional mechanics and stats for a battle that 99% of the player base will actually ignore and for that 1% to do but only once? It’s not like they will learn anything from it either. Any mechanics will go to waste because the boss can never be fought again. Such is the nature of story content.

spartaxoxo

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Nagastani wrote: »

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.

This is why I support a challenge banner for story bosses, and also upping the difficulty of the Overland quest bosses to maybe around the difficulty of the public dungeon bosses rather than like delve bosses.

If the minions were fodder but the story bosses were better, I think it would help with that a lot.

Yeah but then considering that players can run through a story boss once per character and there is no way to incentivize a reason for doing so it’ll never happen.

I mean you have to agree, adding optional mechanics and stats for a battle that 99% of the player base will actually ignore and for that 1% to do but only once? It’s not like they will learn anything from it either. Any mechanics will go to waste because the boss can never be fought again. Such is the nature of story content.

Well a few extra mechanics at story bosses going forward seems like a lot less work than many of the other suggestions, and would help a lot of players feel more invested in the story. There's even plenty of people who still like and enjoy the stories as they are now that find those fights a bit anticlimactic.

It also will not split the playerbase and won't impact the casual experience. All the things a full blown vet overland have going against it, the story bosses having a challenge mode do not.

Amottica

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?

The answer is simple. Rich never said or even suggested the current design has to do with with new or inexperienced players. It has to do with the more challenging that was part of the game at launch (Not craglorn) which was designed for players started at V1 was not used. This told Zenimax players overwhelmingly wanted to enjoy the story without distractions and few were interested in a challenge for regular questing. He also made clear that after they reworked the game to eliminate those veteran zones the game became significantly more successful. As such it was a great business move. He basically finished those statements that the data does not lie.

Seminolegirl1992

Smitch_59 wrote: »

Smitch_59 wrote: »

My 2 cents. I think overland is fine as it is. But then, I'm a terrible player with 1400+ CP; been playing since console launch. I've never done a trial or a vet dungeon. I'm just not that good. I've done nMA exactly once. Never attempted VMA. So there's a lot of content that is simply beyond my puny capabilities. I don't like that fact, but I live with it and don't expect it to change. If ZOS wants to implement a veteran overland, that's fine, but I won't be there.

Edit: I did complete Calwell's Silver and Gold on multiple characters. I enjoyed it because it was almost like playing a single-player TES game.

Multiple characters? Oof you're dedicated. I remember how excited I was when I got my teapot hat. Never again XD

CP5 wrote: »

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.

Yes yes and yes. Also hi fellow guildie.

KyraCROgnon

BroughBreaux wrote: »

All they need to do is add mechanics to NPCs, not increase their damage or health. The reason the overland is boring is because they just stand there and let you kill them, take 5 seconds visually telegraphing any kind of attack that would do any significant amount of damage, and they don't try to avoid your AOEs or strategize a good way to attack in groups.

I would be in favor of that, as it is done for dlc dungeons bosses.
But overland i really doubt it would go well : just look at the few overland bosses that have special mecanics and how few people try something else than shooting the boss (like the witch wb in markath, that summons 4 slimes that need to be killed before her aoe spreads and wipe everyone, most of the people around don't even seem to have noticed that it's happening... )

Seminolegirl1992

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Nagastani wrote: »

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.

This is why I support a challenge banner for story bosses, and also upping the difficulty of the Overland quest bosses to maybe around the difficulty of the public dungeon bosses rather than like delve bosses.

If the minions were fodder but the story bosses were better, I think it would help with that a lot.

That or normal/vet dungeon boss difficulty. Public dungeon bosses are face roll too

Seminolegirl1992

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

SantieClaws wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Also, additional character slots will not be coming out either at any point in the near future. The developers find that managing 18 characters is extreme for players. Few in the player base actually do it. And that in terms of managing the actual database with account data the system can’t even handle it as of now.

Ah terribly sad news for this one.

So many little Claws now that can never be ...

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

This isn't "news," Santie, it is just that some people seem to enjoy going around telling people what the devs think on their behalf. I will believe what the devs intend to do when the actual devs post and tell me so. Until then I take "armchair devs" with a grain of salt (or moonsugar as you prefer).

Does anyone truly believe ZOS will never add new character slots? Data is only as good as one's interpretation of it. Does anyone honestly believe that ZOS thinks alts are irrelevant to long-term stability and player retention? WoW gives you 50. 50 characters, compared to 18. Why does WoW give you so many more? Because WoW has data for more than TWICE the lifespan of ESO that tells them rolling alts is the primary source of long-term player retention.

There is no way a company like ZOS would not realize this.

[Snip]

EDIT: Reasons.

[Edited for bait]

WoW has 50 character slots? Omg I need

Maya_Nur

Elsonso wrote: »

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.

Why not? If mobs are easy to kill, it means they don't match to your skills, right? Then someone who matches your skills (at least those who may act the same as you) may add a challenge. Just let us see:
— Players can do a rotation between two type of weapons and 10 skills, and mob don't.
— Players are able to go out of AOE and mob don't
— Players have powerfull shields and almost instant heals and mobs don't
— Players use buff food and mobs don't.
— Players do pre-fight buffs and mobs don't have it.
— Players can spam one powerful ability until their recources are empty and mobs limited with cooldowns.

I played Metal Gear Rising and DMC 5, and I can say that the most interesting fights were against our equals: Sam and Vergil, because they can do the same as player and even more.

Maya_Nur

CP5 wrote: »

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.

Awesome! I agree with every word! 👏

Maya_Nur

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.

I can understand your feelings, but you should never lose hope, do you hear me, comrade!? ✊ It seems to me like an effect of the forum itself: you suggest something and at least want to hear either promise or denial, but if someone disagree with you, doesn't mean nothing will change. Continue to convince more people, because those who call you a minority just because "forum doesn't represent the whole community" are also a part of the forum so they are also a part of minority. No negative to anyone here, I'm just saying how it is.

AlexanderDeLarge

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.

You're far from the first and far from the last but I do appreciate you voicing it because there's likely a good portion of the veteran population that feels exactly the way you do. Probably more than anyone suspects, myself included. There's a reason this subject pops up everywhere TESO is discussed. I have several IRL and guild friends who used to login daily and now don't even follow what ZOS is up to expansion-wise besides a couple "spears or spellcrafting yet?" jokes. It's a damn shame it's gotten to this point.

Far too much emphasis has been placed on the 'casual player experience' but I really want to ask everyone in this thread... It's been seven years with 15+ chapters and zone DLCs. Even if the casual player only played half of the chapter releases (let's say Morrowind, Greymoor, & Elsweyr) in any meaningful capacity, surely they'd have a character around CP200-300 assuming they're not hopping on alts the second they hit level 50?

If that's the case, why is this being downplayed as much as it is if pretty much everyone that has shown TESO loyalty over the years is approaching or past that point in progression where the game's struggles with power creep and lack of difficulty become extremely apparent? If you disagree, play devil's advocate for a moment. I mean it. Go in the overland and watch a CP300's combat encounter. The enemies aren't lasting long enough to perform whatever scripted actions they have. That's representative of the majority of the content in the game and the majority of the content being sold every year at retail.

It's time for ZOS to throw the veteran players who have been lining their pockets a bone. I really don't feel like we're asking for much here, it can be done with existing phasing tech and a flat modifier Warframe Steel Path-style.

kargen27

"I really don't feel like we're asking for much here, it can be done with existing phasing tech and a flat modifier Warframe Steel Path-style."

You are asking for a complete overhaul of NPCs in every zone and a separate instance created for each zone beyond those created for population overflow. Or that is what most who want a separate vet instance are asking for. They are saying just cranking up health and hits won't cut it. That is actually asking for a massive undertaking. One that I still think isn't worth their time and resources. If it is just about more health and harder hits better to nerf characters and keep us in the same zone than create new zone and buff creatures.
How hard are they going to need to make the content for you to return to each zone? Why will you be going there? Just the main story then gone? Main story and all sides then gone? Gathering resources and roaming around in general just for fun? If you just want to run about killing things the dungeons offer all kinds of different levels you can try.

If the zones have no interest for you now how will better fights increase your interest beyond just doing the story then leaving?

It makes no sense as a business or for the health of the game to devote a large amount of resources to create a harder instance that will in a very short time be empty. There is plenty of harder content to occupy our time. They could maybe give us another solo arena sometime soon and give two difficulty levels for solo instances going forward. Not much point doing it for content that already exists. How many of us are going to create a new character to run through those stories just for a little bit better fight. They can't bump it up a ton.

CP5

kargen27 wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

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.

You keep trying to equate trials and dungeons to overland. They are different. It's like saying we should peel apples because banana peels taste bad. PvP has the exact same NPCs in every instance. So that isn't what you are looking for in relation to overland. Early on zones did also but not because of different mechanics. It was because the zones were not scaled to players as they are now. That is what changed. They didn't go in and remove a bunch of mechanics they can put back.

Companions didn't change existing content and didn't divide the player base. They were part of new content. Your asking for old content to be changed. ZoS has changed the game, they are still changing it. They are tweaking an armor set that is wreaking havoc in Cyrodiil as we speak. Other than One Tamriel they aren't doing a complete rework of old content. You have already said just making the encounters harder through harder hits and more health on the mobs isn't what you want. Well that is what the zoned levels were before One Tamriel. You want different mechanics and that was not in the game for overland zones.

So, simply put, old zones had different instances with different mob levels. ZOS was able to say "AD characters shall face a level 3 mud crab in auridon and DC players shall face a vet1 mud crab instead." In dungeons, the 'same boss' can have additional traits on some abilities, like lord wardens meteor attack doing 95% of a player's health of damage on normal, and one shotting them on vet. Combine the ability to instance zones to different rule sets, and having different rule sets, and...

Companions, content that required a lot of new systems to implement, which are flat out ignored by large parts of the community, were perfectly valid for ZOS to implement. They chose to spend their time making them, knowing full well it wouldn't be for everyone. Just because something that takes some time to make doesn't come off as interesting for you doesn't invalidate its reason to exist.

And since you may not understand my personal stance, it is this. ESO is a video game, enemies in the video game aren't unique. Mobs are cut from the same cloth, containing particular archetypes, with these main types being reskinned across content. You have the guys with only a dagger, archers, fire and frost mages, exc. By changing the base template, you update all enemies who draw from that template. I'll look for it now, but I'm fairly sure ZOS used this template system rather casually around the time Gold Coast dropped to 'nerf the damage but buff the health of damage dealing mobs' and 'buff the damage and nerf the health of tank mobs.' More recently, they blanket nerfed all dungeon adds. Sweeping changes like this aren't out of their reach to do.

Considering so many mobs literally waste their time in combat, the knife throwing guy taking 10min to calculate what angle to toss his butter knife, the bubble conjurer, the cowardly tank, and so on, no combat encounter matters anymore. All I see is where the enemies are, which angle I need to shoot arrow spray at to hit all the targets, then I cast it 2-3 times and voila, fight over. Was it a group of blood thirsty daedra? A pack of werewolves? A platoon of well armed knights? Doesn't matter, each of those fights goes exactly the same way, and even if they all didn't die before getting off an attack, what would they have done anyway, blown a bubble?

That's why I can't engage with overland content in any meaningful way anymore. The stories have generally gotten stale over the years, a combination of the 'year long epic' that hasn't been working for me and situations like when players have to tell others they're part of a secret assassin's guild. On top of that dangerous lands aren't even a concern to explore, evil armies aren't even worth the time to fight, and big bads aren't even worth the patience to wait for their monologue to finish. It feels like going on a rollercoaster, at 1mph, going through the motions without the emotion or thrill behind it.

Hallothiel

spartaxoxo wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

Got the impression people generally did Dolmens for fast experience and leveling and gold because they cant be bothered to grind through the quest lines again, thats certainly the experience ive seen in Alkir desert.

Sure. That's probably part of it. But if there was this large amount of people who really wanted to do hard overland content, you'd think the Dragons and Harrowstorms would be more popular than they are. That crowd in particular often praises the dragons and bit my head off when I suggested they should scale in difficulty based on usage.

But, this is basically always the case for the dragons. People only want to do them if there are big rewards, otherwise they are largely abandoned.

Most of the people who like difficult content in my observation just want to use Overland to build some character up quickly, and then go use their uber builds in trials and dungeons. They like the Dragons and such in theory, they even go there once and in a blue moon just for the fun. But they don't actually spend any real time battling the dragons.

And most of the people who really want to use Overland for more than just a "one and done" thing seem to enjoy it as a relaxing, casual environment. And one who's ease allows them to experiment and have fun with a lot of really dumb builds they have fun with that they wouldn't use in harder content. The hard content they do on their mains, and mostly instanced.

Yep. Agree.

LalMirchi

This has become my most favourite morning coffee thread ever

I really like the eloquent replies of both factions.

My reflections:

1- Surely just beefing up and rewarding us for these few "Bosses" === End of Quest baddies would not be an impossible venture for the devs? There are not that many of them.

I cannot count the times I've done end of quest only to be underwhelmed by the final "boss".

2- No to any splitting of the player population.

3- There is no three ATM

Hallothiel

kargen27 wrote: »

"I really don't feel like we're asking for much here, it can be done with existing phasing tech and a flat modifier Warframe Steel Path-style."

You are asking for a complete overhaul of NPCs in every zone and a separate instance created for each zone beyond those created for population overflow. Or that is what most who want a separate vet instance are asking for. They are saying just cranking up health and hits won't cut it. That is actually asking for a massive undertaking. One that I still think isn't worth their time and resources. If it is just about more health and harder hits better to nerf characters and keep us in the same zone than create new zone and buff creatures.
How hard are they going to need to make the content for you to return to each zone? Why will you be going there? Just the main story then gone? Main story and all sides then gone? Gathering resources and roaming around in general just for fun? If you just want to run about killing things the dungeons offer all kinds of different levels you can try.

If the zones have no interest for you now how will better fights increase your interest beyond just doing the story then leaving?

It makes no sense as a business or for the health of the game to devote a large amount of resources to create a harder instance that will in a very short time be empty. There is plenty of harder content to occupy our time. They could maybe give us another solo arena sometime soon and give two difficulty levels for solo instances going forward. Not much point doing it for content that already exists. How many of us are going to create a new character to run through those stories just for a little bit better fight. They can't bump it up a ton.

Another fantastic post.

Hallothiel

Why is it hard for sone to realise that one game cannot be all things to all people? You are allowed to play more than one game you know.😉

For instance, I love AC games, especially the parkour / climbing about exploring side. This does not exist in ESO world. Would I like it too? Sure, but not going to waste time demanding it as I understand that it is not how they set up the game, and for them to adapt the game to my liking (& I apparently should get to demand as am a ‘vet’ player of over 6 years of playing), it would cost time & money that would be better spent elsewhere. So if I want that parkour fix, I go play a different game. 😁

CP5

kargen27 wrote: »

...

It makes no sense as a business or for the health of the game to devote a large amount of resources to create a harder instance that will in a very short time be empty. There is plenty of harder content to occupy our time. They could maybe give us another solo arena sometime soon and give two difficulty levels for solo instances going forward. Not much point doing it for content that already exists. How many of us are going to create a new character to run through those stories just for a little bit better fight. They can't bump it up a ton.

1. It makes no sense as a business or for the health of the game to devote a large amount of resources to fill a demand in the player base, and is instead better to let players become dissatisfied with the game and leave?

2. "There is plenty of harder content to occupy our time" aka "go back to your corner and be happy, the entire rest of the worlds content isn't for you." Soon to be followed up by "giving players a vet overland will split the player base" without the realization this suggestion is pushing real hard for that.

3. "They could maybe give us another solo arena sometime soon." Hopefully better than Vateshran. All that place is is "run past trash mobs, kill gatekeeper elite add, kill 2 bosses, repeat 3x then the final boss. Add in that of the 10 bosses in that arena, including side bosses, 3 are alright, the 1 final boss is interesting, and the remaining 6 are all irritating for me to fight, with one of them being such a pain in the neck that one of my friends swore off the arena because of them alone.

4. "Not much point doing it for content that already exists." How about for the players who haven't bothered to do that content in the first place? Give them a reason to try it out for once? Nah, old content doesn't need updates.

Hallothiel

1. It makes no sense as a business or for the health of the game to devote a large amount of resources to fill a demand in the player base, and is instead better to let players become dissatisfied with the game and leave?

So if they did this for you, gave you your vet overland, how long before you get bored? What then? Demand even harder overland? Or what?

Players will come & go throughout the lifetime of the game. Some stay, some go, some come back, some find enjoyment in different / new parts of the game. But a company will ruin themselves if they try to be all things to all people.

spartaxoxo

Hallothiel wrote: »

1. It makes no sense as a business or for the health of the game to devote a large amount of resources to fill a demand in the player base, and is instead better to let players become dissatisfied with the game and leave?

So if they did this for you, gave you your vet overland, how long before you get bored? What then? Demand even harder overland? Or what?

Players will come & go throughout the lifetime of the game. Some stay, some go, some come back, some find enjoyment in different / new parts of the game. But a company will ruin themselves if they try to be all things to all people.

Yup. If someone wants a complete overhaul of the game, then maybe that game isn't the one for them. It's normal to burnout on a game eventually, even if they are good.

Something like the story bosses not being hard enough is the kind of smaller scale fix that makes sense to request. But not a separate game mode in a new instance. And no, it's not as simple as a toggle when you're asking for new mechanics. If it was like a debuff toggle that would be different but most here would not be satisfied with that. They want the mobs to function different too, which is an enormous undertaking.

It's far too big in scope. It would split the playerbase, and you'd have to incentivize pretty strongly somehow without leaving casuals in the dust. It's just too much.

CP5

Hallothiel wrote: »

1. It makes no sense as a business or for the health of the game to devote a large amount of resources to fill a demand in the player base, and is instead better to let players become dissatisfied with the game and leave?

So if they did this for you, gave you your vet overland, how long before you get bored? What then? Demand even harder overland? Or what?

Players will come & go throughout the lifetime of the game. Some stay, some go, some come back, some find enjoyment in different / new parts of the game. But a company will ruin themselves if they try to be all things to all people.

It's not a matter of difficulty, it's a matter of having to engage mentally with the content being presented. Enemies that effectively do nothing are nothing. It isn't a "you'll give it up after a week." It's, "I'll actually be able to do the entirety of the skyrim and blackwood dlc because I won't be put to sleep by just moving from one place to another since I'll have to actually pay attention to what I'm doing."

Or, like I alluded to earlier, maybe One Tamriel was a mistake and ZOS shouldn't have tried to change their game to be more open to players. Just let the players who don't like it go, let big issues remain because fixing them takes effort. It isn't like ZOS adds a major update or system to every major dlc and most of the smaller zone dlc's.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

Or, like I alluded to earlier, maybe One Tamriel was a mistake and ZOS shouldn't have tried to change their game to be more open to players. Just let the players who don't like it go, let big issues remain because fixing them takes effort. It isn't like ZOS adds a major update or system to every major dlc and most of the smaller zone dlc's.

There would likely be no game without One Tamriel. It was a massive success that saved the game.

CP5

spartaxoxo wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

Or, like I alluded to earlier, maybe One Tamriel was a mistake and ZOS shouldn't have tried to change their game to be more open to players. Just let the players who don't like it go, let big issues remain because fixing them takes effort. It isn't like ZOS adds a major update or system to every major dlc and most of the smaller zone dlc's.

There would likely be no game without One Tamriel. It was a massive success that saved the game.

And, a change like this allowing more players to enjoy the content ZOS puts the vast majority of their effort into wouldn't help the game going forward? Give people a reason to go back and do the older content, not just the newest?

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

Or, like I alluded to earlier, maybe One Tamriel was a mistake and ZOS shouldn't have tried to change their game to be more open to players. Just let the players who don't like it go, let big issues remain because fixing them takes effort. It isn't like ZOS adds a major update or system to every major dlc and most of the smaller zone dlc's.

There would likely be no game without One Tamriel. It was a massive success that saved the game.

And, a change like this allowing more players to enjoy the content ZOS puts the vast majority of their effort into wouldn't help the game going forward? Give people a reason to go back and do the older content, not just the newest?

Nope. Perhaps the quest bosses but what they would have to sacrifice in terms of cost, impact to the new player experience, and new stuff for everyone is simply not worth something that massive.

I do support smaller changes but the scale of what's being asked with Vet Overland is huge. It's like you're asking for the moon and adamant that stars aren't good enough.

summ0004

CP5 wrote: »

. It feels like going on a rollercoaster, at 1mph, going through the motions without the emotion or thrill behind it.

Lol

Elsonso

CP5 wrote: »

1. It makes no sense as a business or for the health of the game to devote a large amount of resources to fill a demand in the player base, and is instead better to let players become dissatisfied with the game and leave?

Right. The goal is not to get every dollar that they can from every possible customer. The goal is to maximize the return on investment. Generally, this means finding the least expensive thing that provides the greatest amount of revenue. I am sure you can find examples so I don't have to say it and get banned.

CP5 wrote: »

2. "There is plenty of harder content to occupy our time"

To this end, I do have a question. I know that there is a lot of hard content in ESO, and I know that the completion rate for the achievements related to them have not been earned by a lot of players. Are you a player that has completed all of these, including the speed run no death, like Planesbreaker?

Danikat

One idea I had while reading this thread: If ZOS is so data-driven on this issue the way to change their minds is to change the data.

If you want to see harder overworld content in the game make a point of playing the hard content that's currently available. For example on days or weeks when there's an endeavour for killing world bosses don't join the crowd of high CP players farming Limbscather just outside Daggerfall over and over, go into Craglorn or other DLC areas and kill the harder bosses there. (As discussed repeatedly in this thread they're not actually hard for veteran players so it should still be a quick and easy kill, even if you have to do it solo.)

If you have time add Craglorn dailies and other harder PvE content to your schedule and encourage your guild members who also want more of a challenge to join you in doing it.

If ZOS says they base their decisions on what players are doing in the game then that's something you can change - you are the players they're looking at and if they see an increase in the hardest of the content currently available being played they'll be less likely to dismiss requests for more of it as something no one actually wants.

Nagastani

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.

Broham, thanks again for your contributions on here and I completely understand how you feel and agree with what you say.

So, the thing I like to keep in mind is other people don't need to agree with me for me to still be right about the message I believe in. Ok. They're not going to listen but I think in a way, as you eluded to, that is becoming like part of the big problem overall. A lack of listening and its a bad sign when they start ignoring a chunk of their fan base. Bad bad sign. Even though yes I still think ESO is a great game, as do many of us which is why we are taking time to bring these thoughts and opinions to the forums.

But let me leave you with this fam. It doesn't matter what anyone on here really thinks because I have a feeling that one way or another change is coming. And those who think they know people should be the first to understand how quickly things can change. Peace out.