The Elder Scrolls Online

The Gold Road Chapter – which includes the Scribing system – and Update 42 is now available to test on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/656454/
Maintenance for the week of April 29:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 29

800k people don't seem to mind difficult overworld

Leave a Reply
  • Parasaurolophus
    Parasaurolophus
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    Here are a few things that have made the game more popular:
    Cancellation of a mandatory subscription.
    Cancellation of division of alliances.
    Free exploration of the world without levels.
    DLC`s quality was much higher than vanilla.
    Excellent and completely replayable High-End content.

    And easy overland as confirmed by player metrics of the entire playerbase

    Which has always been so. I wrote about this in the post you quoted. The only nerfed location is Craglorn.
    Edited by Parasaurolophus on 16 October 2021 01:13
    PC/EU
  • trackdemon5512
    trackdemon5512
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭
    colossalvoids wrote: »
    trackdemon5512 wrote: »
    The results of ZOS’ recent BG test are in. They pretty much confirm what we’ve been saying about listening to the forum minorities:

    *snip*

    And before anyone gets and tries to use her freedom of choice point as an argument in favor of vet overland, understand that you have never had a choice. There was never an option between regular and vet overland. The game just had zones at different levels.

    And since One Tamriel came about, with zones all the same level, the game and its population have only gotten bigger and stronger. The evidence is against vet overland.

    That's probably the most bizarre piece of "analysis" I've read in this thread, congratulations.

    How about:

    - Forum group yells for years about bad BGs. Says they should be Deathmatch only. Points to players treating all BG modes as Deathmatches as proof
    - ZOS gives in under the guise of a test. Only Deathmatch BGs. Said group is ecstatic
    - Several weeks later the conclusion is reached that such a change was a failure.
    - Not only did casual BG players dislike the change and not participate, but the numbers of those who argued for said change amounted to a poor number. Many didn’t stay around long after testing was implemented and the BG population was worse than before.

    See any parallels with the harder overland difficulty crowd? Or that such changes result in a butterfly effect, driving away more at the cost of appeasing a few.
  • spartaxoxo
    spartaxoxo
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    Here are a few things that have made the game more popular:
    Cancellation of a mandatory subscription.
    Cancellation of division of alliances.
    Free exploration of the world without levels.
    DLC`s quality was much higher than vanilla.
    Excellent and completely replayable High-End content.

    And easy overland as confirmed by player metrics of the entire playerbase

    Which has always been so. I wrote about this in the post you quoted. The only nerfed location is Craglorn.

    It used to be harder to do silver and gold zones too. Beyond that, devs see that their current success is also tied to the current easy overland.
    Edited by spartaxoxo on 16 October 2021 01:21
  • spartaxoxo
    spartaxoxo
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    trackdemon5512 wrote: »
    colossalvoids wrote: »
    trackdemon5512 wrote: »
    The results of ZOS’ recent BG test are in. They pretty much confirm what we’ve been saying about listening to the forum minorities:

    *snip*

    And before anyone gets and tries to use her freedom of choice point as an argument in favor of vet overland, understand that you have never had a choice. There was never an option between regular and vet overland. The game just had zones at different levels.

    And since One Tamriel came about, with zones all the same level, the game and its population have only gotten bigger and stronger. The evidence is against vet overland.

    That's probably the most bizarre piece of "analysis" I've read in this thread, congratulations.

    How about:

    - Forum group yells for years about bad BGs. Says they should be Deathmatch only. Points to players treating all BG modes as Deathmatches as proof
    - ZOS gives in under the guise of a test. Only Deathmatch BGs. Said group is ecstatic
    - Several weeks later the conclusion is reached that such a change was a failure.
    - Not only did casual BG players dislike the change and not participate, but the numbers of those who argued for said change amounted to a poor number. Many didn’t stay around long after testing was implemented and the BG population was worse than before.

    See any parallels with the harder overland difficulty crowd? Or that such changes result in a butterfly effect, driving away more at the cost of appeasing a few.

    Most people wanted a DM only queue not the total removal of all other forms of BGs. And that's exactly the outcome of this test.
  • Parasaurolophus
    Parasaurolophus
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    Here are a few things that have made the game more popular:
    Cancellation of a mandatory subscription.
    Cancellation of division of alliances.
    Free exploration of the world without levels.
    DLC`s quality was much higher than vanilla.
    Excellent and completely replayable High-End content.

    And easy overland as confirmed by player metrics of the entire playerbase

    Which has always been so. I wrote about this in the post you quoted. The only nerfed location is Craglorn.

    It used to be harder to do silver and gold zones too. Beyond that, devs see that their current success is also tied to the current easy overland.

    No that's not true. Just no, you are wrong. The zone just demanded a higher level each time. But at your level, the mobs were always pretty easy. Not as easy as it is now, yes. But not so easily means that the mobs died not from two castings, but from about four.
    trackdemon5512 wrote: »
    colossalvoids wrote: »
    trackdemon5512 wrote: »
    The results of ZOS’ recent BG test are in. They pretty much confirm what we’ve been saying about listening to the forum minorities:

    *snip*

    And before anyone gets and tries to use her freedom of choice point as an argument in favor of vet overland, understand that you have never had a choice. There was never an option between regular and vet overland. The game just had zones at different levels.

    And since One Tamriel came about, with zones all the same level, the game and its population have only gotten bigger and stronger. The evidence is against vet overland.

    That's probably the most bizarre piece of "analysis" I've read in this thread, congratulations.

    How about:

    - Forum group yells for years about bad BGs. Says they should be Deathmatch only. Points to players treating all BG modes as Deathmatches as proof
    - ZOS gives in under the guise of a test. Only Deathmatch BGs. Said group is ecstatic
    - Several weeks later the conclusion is reached that such a change was a failure.
    - Not only did casual BG players dislike the change and not participate, but the numbers of those who argued for said change amounted to a poor number. Many didn’t stay around long after testing was implemented and the BG population was worse than before.

    See any parallels with the harder overland difficulty crowd? Or that such changes result in a butterfly effect, driving away more at the cost of appeasing a few.

    You forgot to say that ZoS ended up making a separate queue for the death match. The game as a whole is currently experiencing a strong outcome of pvp players. Just juggling in queues will do nothing, I think.
    Also. You say that those players who only wanted a death match are a minority. But they were enough to ruin the objective modes.
    I am afraid that the same experiment may await us in the future. ZoS will just make a separate veteran mirror. Then he will see that the old players do not want to return to the locations that they completed a long time ago, and recognizes the experiment as unsuccessful.
    Edited by Parasaurolophus on 16 October 2021 01:39
    PC/EU
  • spartaxoxo
    spartaxoxo
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    No that's not true. The zone simply demanded a higher level each time. But at your level, the mobs were always pretty easy.

    It is true. The mobs were at a different level than you and that made them harder. So a lot of people didn't bother.
  • Parasaurolophus
    Parasaurolophus
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    No that's not true. The zone simply demanded a higher level each time. But at your level, the mobs were always pretty easy.

    It is true. The mobs were at a different level than you and that made them harder. So a lot of people didn't bother.

    You have no idea how much more difficult it is. The mobs at the other end of the location were invincible. This literally prevented us from exploring the location. The very design of the questing put us on the rails from which we could not get off. Progress affected us too much. But that's not the point. I say that the zones of silver and gold were fundamentally no different from the locations of your alliance.
    PC/EU
  • spartaxoxo
    spartaxoxo
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    No that's not true. The zone simply demanded a higher level each time. But at your level, the mobs were always pretty easy.

    It is true. The mobs were at a different level than you and that made them harder. So a lot of people didn't bother.

    You have no idea how much more difficult it is. The mobs at the other end of the location were invincible. This literally prevented us from exploring the location. The very design of the questing put us on the rails from which we could not get off. Progress affected us too much. But that's not the point. I say that the zones of silver and gold were fundamentally no different from the locations of your alliance.

    But it made it harder. And there was plenty of feedback then of people enjoying or not enjoying the increased challenge they represented. But in the end, as stated by ZOS most didn't like it and didn't bother. The mechs may not have different but that's not the only way to have increased difficulty.
  • Parasaurolophus
    Parasaurolophus
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    No that's not true. The zone simply demanded a higher level each time. But at your level, the mobs were always pretty easy.

    It is true. The mobs were at a different level than you and that made them harder. So a lot of people didn't bother.

    You have no idea how much more difficult it is. The mobs at the other end of the location were invincible. This literally prevented us from exploring the location. The very design of the questing put us on the rails from which we could not get off. Progress affected us too much. But that's not the point. I say that the zones of silver and gold were fundamentally no different from the locations of your alliance.

    But it made it harder. And there was plenty of feedback then of people enjoying or not enjoying the increased challenge they represented. But in the end, as stated by ZOS most didn't like it and didn't bother. The mechs may not have different but that's not the only way to have increased difficulty.

    I expected you to say so. But you are wrong. We did not like that they literally limit even within one location, making traveling to another location or to the other end of the current location not only difficult, but impossible. You just seem to have a bad idea of what this game was really like before OT. We just had a hugely increasing modifier for mobs. And as many wrote here, this is not at all what players who ask for a wet overland want.
    But again ... We talked about whether the silver and gold were more difficult than the locations of your alliance. I just said that Rich's statement was very strange. After all, he also said that most people were completing the questline of their alliance.
    Edited by Parasaurolophus on 16 October 2021 01:54
    PC/EU
  • JJOtterBear
    JJOtterBear
    ✭✭✭✭
    the funny part is, even if ZOS ever considered doing this, the people who want it would eventually find themselves bored again, and then start demanding a nightmare mode where they just constantly die, then complain about the difficulty and we are right back at the start.

    Because once all these challenge seeking people overcome it, then what? when will enough be enough?

    Hint: it won't. They will never be satisfied.
  • SilverBride
    SilverBride
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    I just said that Rich's statement was very strange. After all, he also said that most people were completing the questline of their alliance.

    Rich was responding to someone who said the reason no one did Silver and Gold was because they had to go through their own alliance first. He said that wasn't actually true and that a ton of people completed their own alliance storylines to get to Silver and Gold but they just did not like extra difficulty in the story.

    https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1133028256?t=1h48m0s 1:48:00 through 1:51:11
    PCNA
  • CP5
    CP5
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    Here are a few things that have made the game more popular:
    Cancellation of a mandatory subscription.
    Cancellation of division of alliances.
    Free exploration of the world without levels.
    DLC`s quality was much higher than vanilla.
    Excellent and completely replayable High-End content.

    And easy overland as confirmed by player metrics of the entire playerbase

    The only option is the most popular option? Interesting.
  • spartaxoxo
    spartaxoxo
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    No that's not true. The zone simply demanded a higher level each time. But at your level, the mobs were always pretty easy.

    It is true. The mobs were at a different level than you and that made them harder. So a lot of people didn't bother.

    You have no idea how much more difficult it is. The mobs at the other end of the location were invincible. This literally prevented us from exploring the location. The very design of the questing put us on the rails from which we could not get off. Progress affected us too much. But that's not the point. I say that the zones of silver and gold were fundamentally no different from the locations of your alliance.

    But it made it harder. And there was plenty of feedback then of people enjoying or not enjoying the increased challenge they represented. But in the end, as stated by ZOS most didn't like it and didn't bother. The mechs may not have different but that's not the only way to have increased difficulty.

    I expected you to say so. But you are wrong. We did not like that they literally limit even within one location, making traveling to another location or to the other end of the current location not only difficult, but impossible. You just seem to have a bad idea of what this game was really like before OT. We just had a hugely increasing modifier for mobs. And as many wrote here, this is not at all what players who ask for a wet overland want.
    But again ... We talked about whether the silver and gold were more difficult than the locations of your alliance. I just said that Rich's statement was very strange. After all, he also said that most people were completing the questline of their alliance.

    So people weren't saying things like this after things changed?

    k4kJXrv.png

    or this (both images same person)

    NH1LxAR.png
    ItSiwzj.png

    or here is someone who actually enjoyed the challenge and was sad to see it go. They had the same complaint that you do now.

    nu6Jt1m.png

    I don't think I have a poor understanding of what happened there at all. It used to be harder and the devs changed things.
    Edited by spartaxoxo on 16 October 2021 02:33
  • spartaxoxo
    spartaxoxo
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    CP5 wrote: »
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    Here are a few things that have made the game more popular:
    Cancellation of a mandatory subscription.
    Cancellation of division of alliances.
    Free exploration of the world without levels.
    DLC`s quality was much higher than vanilla.
    Excellent and completely replayable High-End content.

    And easy overland as confirmed by player metrics of the entire playerbase

    The only option is the most popular option? Interesting.

    It is not the only option. There is "difficult" content in Overland right now. The newest public dungeons, the world events, world bosses, etc.
    Edited by spartaxoxo on 16 October 2021 02:36
  • Amottica
    Amottica
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    Here are a few things that have made the game more popular:
    Cancellation of a mandatory subscription.
    Cancellation of division of alliances.
    Free exploration of the world without levels.
    DLC`s quality was much higher than vanilla.
    Excellent and completely replayable High-End content.

    And easy overland as confirmed by player metrics of the entire playerbase

    Which has always been so. I wrote about this in the post you quoted. The only nerfed location is Craglorn.

    @Parasaurolophus Silver and Gold were nerfed. That is what they are speaking to and something Rich has stated.
  • Casul
    Casul
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭
    Easy solution. Toggle switch at cp 160 that deactivates CP in exchange for 25% xp and gold buff. I tell you when I swapped to PC and started new you really don't realize how weak a new account is. Comparing a fresh character with 1200+ isn't comparable. Overland needs to be easy.
    PvP needs more love.
  • trackdemon5512
    trackdemon5512
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭
    BuildMan wrote: »
    Easy solution. Toggle switch at cp 160 that deactivates CP in exchange for 25% xp and gold buff. I tell you when I swapped to PC and started new you really don't realize how weak a new account is. Comparing a fresh character with 1200+ isn't comparable. Overland needs to be easy.

    With the Armory system you can toggle CP on and off for no cost. There is no reason to incentivize it.

    There has to be a clear and defining disadvantage to incentivize things. Look at Imperial Physique. Gain a sizable stat boost in exchange for having the biggest target placed on your back. That’s a fair trade off.
  • LashanW
    LashanW
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    Why is it that none of the existing vet content is a great example of why vet content would be popular? And why do you think more of it wouldn't fair the same? You wouldn't need to spend all of your time doing dragons. But if enough people were spending at least some of their time doing it or any other difficult overland content, there would be more a reason to implement these changes.
    I am one of those who'd love a vet overland (has to be optional tho, absolutely unacceptable to take away choice). Hell I'd pay for it.

    I want it because the current questing experience offers zero gameplay value to me. And most of the quests happen in overland zones. That is why I want a separate vet overland instance. When I'm in overland I don't generally care about world bosses or events like harrowstorms, because they offer little to the story (not talking about daily repeatable quests). If zone quests involved fighting world bosses at some point, then I'd fight them. Otherwise I don't see the point. They don't even drop good stuff most of the time.

    I am at a loss with ESO atm because endgame raiding is the only enjoyable content in the game for me right now. But I can't be raiding 24/7. Been trying all this time to get into questing but after 4 years I just can't because it lacks gameplay value. There is no immersion when the story being told to me is so vastly different from what I'm experiencing during the quests. I still did most of the base game zones and a couple of DLC zones. But haven't touched any chapters after Morrowind.

    I finally stopped subbing for ESO+ because of this. I have no options to enjoy the biggest portion of the content I pay for. I keep finding myself spending less and less time in ESO, and it's sad. Because this is the game I've played the most in my life and have so many fond memories of playing with my buddies and guildies.
    ---No longer active in ESO---
    Platform: PC-EU
    CP: 2500+
    Trial Achievements
    Godslayer, Gryphon Heart, Tick-Tock Tormentor, Immortal Redeemer, Dro-m'Athra Destroyer, vMoL no death

    Arena Achievements
    vMA Flawless, vVH Spirit Slayer

    DLC Dungeon Trifectas
    Scalecaller Peak, Fang Lair, Depths of Malatar, Icereach
  • CP5
    CP5
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    CP5 wrote: »
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    Here are a few things that have made the game more popular:
    Cancellation of a mandatory subscription.
    Cancellation of division of alliances.
    Free exploration of the world without levels.
    DLC`s quality was much higher than vanilla.
    Excellent and completely replayable High-End content.

    And easy overland as confirmed by player metrics of the entire playerbase

    The only option is the most popular option? Interesting.

    It is not the only option. There is "difficult" content in Overland right now. The newest public dungeons, the world events, world bosses, etc.

    So, sit in your designated corner, doing what ZOS intended to be group content alone to make it a challenge, but if you want to explore the world or quest, still only the one option.
  • Parasaurolophus
    Parasaurolophus
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭
    SilverBride wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    I just said that Rich's statement was very strange. After all, he also said that most people were completing the questline of their alliance.

    Rich was responding to someone who said the reason no one did Silver and Gold was because they had to go through their own alliance first. He said that wasn't actually true and that a ton of people completed their own alliance storylines to get to Silver and Gold but they just did not like extra difficulty in the story.

    https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1133028256?t=1h48m0s 1:48:00 through 1:51:11

    There were no additional difficulties. I will repeat once again that the zones of silver and gold were no different from the zones of their alliance.
    PC/EU
  • Kamatsu
    Kamatsu
    ✭✭✭✭
    CP5 wrote: »
    The majority don't use companions, yet they exist. Not every thing added to the game needs to be for everyone.
    I see you keep saying this - but can you prove it? Do you have access to internal game metrics which show how many active players are using companions and how many are not?

    Answer: No you don't. You can only judge by what you see when you're playing, if you're even looking.

    My rebuttal to you: In the past week I've been to many different places throughout the game. The vast majority of ppl I see playing have a companion out and active while they are questing, doing dolmens, etc.

    Who's correct? Neither of us have access to actual game metrics, but the viewpoint of companion use is absolutely opposite of each other.

    As to the premise of this thread: What it really boils down to is this is a business, and any business is going to try and maximize it's profit by catering to the majority, while throwing bones to the minority. This is exactly what we see in ESO - Overland & quest's are easy, while you do have more difficult content in HM dungeons, overland boss/group fights, etc.

    Another thing to consider is every business has a limited budget to do things - so eSO only has a set budget of money & man-hours they can dedicate to something. If they were to dedicate time into making a vet overland toggle/instance/server... where would they get the man-hours from, and who would lose out?

    - Vet Dungeons? The community that loves these already complains the few dungeons they get a year isn't enough I believe. They will be peeved if they suddenly find that for a year they'll get either only 1 or no new dungeons

    - PvP? The PvP community is already in decline due to years of now effort and manpower spent on it, with a myriad of issues and problems. Having what few ppl are working on it taken off it... would kill the Cyrodil scene, and hugely negatively effect the BG scene

    - Crafting / housing / etc? People like looking forward to new houses, new systems in place. ZOS has shown a willingness to try different things. How would everyone feel if suddenly that wasn't going to happen for a year due to Vet Overland?

    - Questing? Take a look at how negative ppl are to the current questing. Questing quality has deteriorated, and if it gets shortchanged any further... ZOS might find the majority of the playerbase starting to leave & not come back if what they come for gets even worse.

    So I ask you again: What aspect of the game & the associated players would you like to cripple for the 6-12? months it would take to implement what you're after? What aspects of the game would you not care if it didn't change, get improved or added on in a 6-12 month period? What part of the player base do you want to annoy/turn-away to get what you want?
    o_O
  • HyekAr
    HyekAr
    ✭✭✭
    What they have to do is change fighting mechanics to stop rotation spaming, and when the game will be more tactical, then will be more fun for overland/dungs etc.. nowdays only vet have tactica Gameplay, even normal trials are becoming like dungeons: spaming rotation mode
  • Parasaurolophus
    Parasaurolophus
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    No that's not true. The zone simply demanded a higher level each time. But at your level, the mobs were always pretty easy.

    It is true. The mobs were at a different level than you and that made them harder. So a lot of people didn't bother.

    You have no idea how much more difficult it is. The mobs at the other end of the location were invincible. This literally prevented us from exploring the location. The very design of the questing put us on the rails from which we could not get off. Progress affected us too much. But that's not the point. I say that the zones of silver and gold were fundamentally no different from the locations of your alliance.

    But it made it harder. And there was plenty of feedback then of people enjoying or not enjoying the increased challenge they represented. But in the end, as stated by ZOS most didn't like it and didn't bother. The mechs may not have different but that's not the only way to have increased difficulty.

    I expected you to say so. But you are wrong. We did not like that they literally limit even within one location, making traveling to another location or to the other end of the current location not only difficult, but impossible. You just seem to have a bad idea of what this game was really like before OT. We just had a hugely increasing modifier for mobs. And as many wrote here, this is not at all what players who ask for a wet overland want.
    But again ... We talked about whether the silver and gold were more difficult than the locations of your alliance. I just said that Rich's statement was very strange. After all, he also said that most people were completing the questline of their alliance.

    So people weren't saying things like this after things changed?

    k4kJXrv.png

    or this (both images same person)

    NH1LxAR.png
    ItSiwzj.png

    or here is someone who actually enjoyed the challenge and was sad to see it go. They had the same complaint that you do now.

    nu6Jt1m.png

    I don't think I have a poor understanding of what happened there at all. It used to be harder and the devs changed things.

    I completed all alliances without any difficulty. I played without sets, without knowledge of mechanics, even without healing skills. I tried to heal only with potions. I just have no idea what difficulties could be? Maybe the person did not have the appropriate rank?
    PC/EU
  • Parasaurolophus
    Parasaurolophus
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭
    Amottica wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    Here are a few things that have made the game more popular:
    Cancellation of a mandatory subscription.
    Cancellation of division of alliances.
    Free exploration of the world without levels.
    DLC`s quality was much higher than vanilla.
    Excellent and completely replayable High-End content.

    And easy overland as confirmed by player metrics of the entire playerbase

    Which has always been so. I wrote about this in the post you quoted. The only nerfed location is Craglorn.

    @Parasaurolophus Silver and Gold were nerfed. That is what they are speaking to and something Rich has stated.

    No ... Of course it was weakened in order to even out all of the overall complexity. But these zones differed simply by increased requirements for the character's rank. The difficulty didn't start to skyrocket when reaching VR. It grew as gradually as in the zones of your alliance.
    PC/EU
  • Parasaurolophus
    Parasaurolophus
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭
    Kamatsu wrote: »
    CP5 wrote: »
    The majority don't use companions, yet they exist. Not every thing added to the game needs to be for everyone.
    I see you keep saying this - but can you prove it? Do you have access to internal game metrics which show how many active players are using companions and how many are not?

    Answer: No you don't. You can only judge by what you see when you're playing, if you're even looking.

    My rebuttal to you: In the past week I've been to many different places throughout the game. The vast majority of ppl I see playing have a companion out and active while they are questing, doing dolmens, etc.

    Who's correct? Neither of us have access to actual game metrics, but the viewpoint of companion use is absolutely opposite of each other.

    As to the premise of this thread: What it really boils down to is this is a business, and any business is going to try and maximize it's profit by catering to the majority, while throwing bones to the minority. This is exactly what we see in ESO - Overland & quest's are easy, while you do have more difficult content in HM dungeons, overland boss/group fights, etc.

    Another thing to consider is every business has a limited budget to do things - so eSO only has a set budget of money & man-hours they can dedicate to something. If they were to dedicate time into making a vet overland toggle/instance/server... where would they get the man-hours from, and who would lose out?

    - Vet Dungeons? The community that loves these already complains the few dungeons they get a year isn't enough I believe. They will be peeved if they suddenly find that for a year they'll get either only 1 or no new dungeons

    - PvP? The PvP community is already in decline due to years of now effort and manpower spent on it, with a myriad of issues and problems. Having what few ppl are working on it taken off it... would kill the Cyrodil scene, and hugely negatively effect the BG scene

    - Crafting / housing / etc? People like looking forward to new houses, new systems in place. ZOS has shown a willingness to try different things. How would everyone feel if suddenly that wasn't going to happen for a year due to Vet Overland?

    - Questing? Take a look at how negative ppl are to the current questing. Questing quality has deteriorated, and if it gets shortchanged any further... ZOS might find the majority of the playerbase starting to leave & not come back if what they come for gets even worse.

    So I ask you again: What aspect of the game & the associated players would you like to cripple for the 6-12? months it would take to implement what you're after? What aspects of the game would you not care if it didn't change, get improved or added on in a 6-12 month period? What part of the player base do you want to annoy/turn-away to get what you want?

    It's hard for me to explain why counting money as ZoS is a bad idea. But any new developments and systems naturally require money, and we have no idea how much it actually costs. But you say that ZoS is some kind of small indie studio, where the same people are responsible for the houses and for the combat content.
    PC/EU
  • _adhyffbjjjf12
    _adhyffbjjjf12
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    Kamatsu wrote: »
    CP5 wrote: »
    The majority don't use companions, yet they exist. Not every thing added to the game needs to be for everyone.
    I see you keep saying this - but can you prove it? Do you have access to internal game metrics which show how many active players are using companions and how many are not?

    Answer: No you don't. You can only judge by what you see when you're playing, if you're even looking.

    My rebuttal to you: In the past week I've been to many different places throughout the game. The vast majority of ppl I see playing have a companion out and active while they are questing, doing dolmens, etc.

    Who's correct? Neither of us have access to actual game metrics, but the viewpoint of companion use is absolutely opposite of each other.

    As to the premise of this thread: What it really boils down to is this is a business, and any business is going to try and maximize it's profit by catering to the majority, while throwing bones to the minority. This is exactly what we see in ESO - Overland & quest's are easy, while you do have more difficult content in HM dungeons, overland boss/group fights, etc.

    Another thing to consider is every business has a limited budget to do things - so eSO only has a set budget of money & man-hours they can dedicate to something. If they were to dedicate time into making a vet overland toggle/instance/server... where would they get the man-hours from, and who would lose out?

    - Vet Dungeons? The community that loves these already complains the few dungeons they get a year isn't enough I believe. They will be peeved if they suddenly find that for a year they'll get either only 1 or no new dungeons

    - PvP? The PvP community is already in decline due to years of now effort and manpower spent on it, with a myriad of issues and problems. Having what few ppl are working on it taken off it... would kill the Cyrodil scene, and hugely negatively effect the BG scene

    - Crafting / housing / etc? People like looking forward to new houses, new systems in place. ZOS has shown a willingness to try different things. How would everyone feel if suddenly that wasn't going to happen for a year due to Vet Overland?

    - Questing? Take a look at how negative ppl are to the current questing. Questing quality has deteriorated, and if it gets shortchanged any further... ZOS might find the majority of the playerbase starting to leave & not come back if what they come for gets even worse.

    So I ask you again: What aspect of the game & the associated players would you like to cripple for the 6-12? months it would take to implement what you're after? What aspects of the game would you not care if it didn't change, get improved or added on in a 6-12 month period? What part of the player base do you want to annoy/turn-away to get what you want?

    It's hard for me to explain why counting money as ZoS is a bad idea. But any new developments and systems naturally require money, and we have no idea how much it actually costs. But you say that ZoS is some kind of small indie studio, where the same people are responsible for the houses and for the combat content.

    What he is saying is that everything has an opportunity cost. We know roughly the volume of content that ESO delivers in a year, so the cost/benefit of some other content needs to be evaluated against the loss of some of this yearly output. For me, making bugs and pirates hard in overland has practically no value.
    Edited by _adhyffbjjjf12 on 16 October 2021 11:07
  • summ0004
    summ0004
    ✭✭✭
    Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »
    SilverBride wrote: »
    Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »
    Cadwell's Silver and Gold is another bad example though. Players didn't want to go through the same thing in a different zone, but more tedious and limited to your faction.

    That isn't it at all.

    "A ton of people completed their own alliance storylines to get to silver and gold. A ton of people did. People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff."

    We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it."     - Rich Lambert

    I think there's a difference in making the alliance stories tedious and making them engaging. They've missed the mark on that. Also many people just wanted to complete their alliance story/main story once. They didn't want to basically 'redo' the story but in a different alliance. So if his idea of people not liking the difficulty was because people didn't like the concept of "kill Molag Bal, then go to another alliance to see their version of history" then that data could be inaccurate. I've heard a lot of people say that they loved doing the main story but it seemed silly to just go do it again ish but different alliance. I think they would be surprised if they added a toggle or option to vet bosses in new expansions. Those stories are fresh, new. They are not main story 2.0 and main story 3.0. I don't think he's considering that in his argument.

    Thats exactly how I felt. I made a start with cadwells silver but just felt bored and burnt out having to go through it all again but on harder mode.

    Lets not forget too, this is about going forward with the game and not analysing the past reasoning for 6 years ago. The needs, competition and trends all change over time and sometimes you have to be innovative and not stick with just pumping out the same formula and justifications for it.
  • Parasaurolophus
    Parasaurolophus
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭
    _adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    Kamatsu wrote: »
    CP5 wrote: »
    The majority don't use companions, yet they exist. Not every thing added to the game needs to be for everyone.
    I see you keep saying this - but can you prove it? Do you have access to internal game metrics which show how many active players are using companions and how many are not?

    Answer: No you don't. You can only judge by what you see when you're playing, if you're even looking.

    My rebuttal to you: In the past week I've been to many different places throughout the game. The vast majority of ppl I see playing have a companion out and active while they are questing, doing dolmens, etc.

    Who's correct? Neither of us have access to actual game metrics, but the viewpoint of companion use is absolutely opposite of each other.

    As to the premise of this thread: What it really boils down to is this is a business, and any business is going to try and maximize it's profit by catering to the majority, while throwing bones to the minority. This is exactly what we see in ESO - Overland & quest's are easy, while you do have more difficult content in HM dungeons, overland boss/group fights, etc.

    Another thing to consider is every business has a limited budget to do things - so eSO only has a set budget of money & man-hours they can dedicate to something. If they were to dedicate time into making a vet overland toggle/instance/server... where would they get the man-hours from, and who would lose out?

    - Vet Dungeons? The community that loves these already complains the few dungeons they get a year isn't enough I believe. They will be peeved if they suddenly find that for a year they'll get either only 1 or no new dungeons

    - PvP? The PvP community is already in decline due to years of now effort and manpower spent on it, with a myriad of issues and problems. Having what few ppl are working on it taken off it... would kill the Cyrodil scene, and hugely negatively effect the BG scene

    - Crafting / housing / etc? People like looking forward to new houses, new systems in place. ZOS has shown a willingness to try different things. How would everyone feel if suddenly that wasn't going to happen for a year due to Vet Overland?

    - Questing? Take a look at how negative ppl are to the current questing. Questing quality has deteriorated, and if it gets shortchanged any further... ZOS might find the majority of the playerbase starting to leave & not come back if what they come for gets even worse.

    So I ask you again: What aspect of the game & the associated players would you like to cripple for the 6-12? months it would take to implement what you're after? What aspects of the game would you not care if it didn't change, get improved or added on in a 6-12 month period? What part of the player base do you want to annoy/turn-away to get what you want?

    It's hard for me to explain why counting money as ZoS is a bad idea. But any new developments and systems naturally require money, and we have no idea how much it actually costs. But you say that ZoS is some kind of small indie studio, where the same people are responsible for the houses and for the combat content.

    What he is saying is that everything has an opportunity cost. We know roughly the volume of content that ESO delivers in a year, so the cost/benefit of some other content needs to be evaluated against the loss of some of this yearly output. For me, making bugs and pirates hard in overland has practically no value.

    But this, alas, does not fix the problem. As well as explaining that the number of furniture slots is limited does not technically fix the problem of large empty houses, which ZoS continues to do. Overland doesn't get any more fun for anyone from these explanations.
    I don't understand why these conversations turn into a discussion of costs for the company, when no one has the slightest idea how much a particular development costs.
    Constantly asking who is the minority and who is the majority? There are many examples of successful and popular games where the difficulty for 90% of the content is not absurdly trivial. There are many MMOs where pve and pvp are perfectly combined. But some players argue that for some mystical reasons, eso will only be a successful game if it looks like a visual novel with completely dead pvp.
    The main purpose of these threads is to state that the overland is terribly boring. And most counterarguments just bombard us with costs. Well ... Okay. If ZoS really can't create interesting overland content, where a good population without events would be maintained, because it's expensive and players don't appreciate the gameplay, then this is very bad. This is really very bad. the game has alienated most people who like to enjoy primarily interesting gameplay. The game pushed them away even before OT. Mandatory level progression system = / = difficulty. The Overland was just as tiresome.
    Edited by Parasaurolophus on 16 October 2021 11:33
    PC/EU
  • CP5
    CP5
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    SilverBride wrote: »
    Parasaurolophus wrote: »
    I just said that Rich's statement was very strange. After all, he also said that most people were completing the questline of their alliance.

    Rich was responding to someone who said the reason no one did Silver and Gold was because they had to go through their own alliance first. He said that wasn't actually true and that a ton of people completed their own alliance storylines to get to Silver and Gold but they just did not like extra difficulty in the story.

    https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1133028256?t=1h48m0s 1:48:00 through 1:51:11

    There were no additional difficulties. I will repeat once again that the zones of silver and gold were no different from the zones of their alliance.

    Not only were the mobs different level ranges, but each instance type restricted who could enter based on faction. Not hard to imagine them being able to tweak other things between instances, like they do everywhere else.
    Kamatsu wrote: »
    CP5 wrote: »
    The majority don't use companions, yet they exist. Not every thing added to the game needs to be for everyone.
    I see you keep saying this - but can you prove it? Do you have access to internal game metrics which show how many active players are using companions and how many are not?

    Answer: No you don't. You can only judge by what you see when you're playing, if you're even looking.

    My rebuttal to you: In the past week I've been to many different places throughout the game. The vast majority of ppl I see playing have a companion out and active while they are questing, doing dolmens, etc.

    Who's correct? Neither of us have access to actual game metrics, but the viewpoint of companion use is absolutely opposite of each other.

    As to the premise of this thread: What it really boils down to is this is a business, and any business is going to try and maximize it's profit by catering to the majority, while throwing bones to the minority. This is exactly what we see in ESO - Overland & quest's are easy, while you do have more difficult content in HM dungeons, overland boss/group fights, etc.

    Another thing to consider is every business has a limited budget to do things - so eSO only has a set budget of money & man-hours they can dedicate to something. If they were to dedicate time into making a vet overland toggle/instance/server... where would they get the man-hours from, and who would lose out?

    - Vet Dungeons? The community that loves these already complains the few dungeons they get a year isn't enough I believe. They will be peeved if they suddenly find that for a year they'll get either only 1 or no new dungeons

    - PvP? The PvP community is already in decline due to years of now effort and manpower spent on it, with a myriad of issues and problems. Having what few ppl are working on it taken off it... would kill the Cyrodil scene, and hugely negatively effect the BG scene

    - Crafting / housing / etc? People like looking forward to new houses, new systems in place. ZOS has shown a willingness to try different things. How would everyone feel if suddenly that wasn't going to happen for a year due to Vet Overland?

    - Questing? Take a look at how negative ppl are to the current questing. Questing quality has deteriorated, and if it gets shortchanged any further... ZOS might find the majority of the playerbase starting to leave & not come back if what they come for gets even worse.

    So I ask you again: What aspect of the game & the associated players would you like to cripple for the 6-12? months it would take to implement what you're after? What aspects of the game would you not care if it didn't change, get improved or added on in a 6-12 month period? What part of the player base do you want to annoy/turn-away to get what you want?

    First, your points about things being skipped. Did companion development cause ZOS to cut the dungeons from this years rotation? Did the CP overhaul? Did the item set collection stop them from adding more sets? This is a utility slot in their content rotation, dungeons are a part of it, zones, with all their questing and home furnishings are a part of that. None of the additional features, not the necromancer, jewelry crafting, or the like, have gotten in the way of that.

    ZOS adds additional things like this to content all the time, between new classes, the CP overhaul, they set aside time outside those pain points you're so worried about them skipping to add new things, not just the bare minimum. Ignore that if you like, but just like the CP overhaul, or the old zone delve update ZOS did years ago, they can do this over time if need be, but them putting effort into this openly would only serve to provoke those in this thread who are aggressively against the idea.
  • Hallothiel
    Hallothiel
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    CP5 wrote: »
    SilverBride wrote: »
    CP5 wrote: »
    SilverBride wrote: »
    CP5 wrote: »
    SilverBride wrote: »
    The reason it's mentioned in these threads is to show how many players did not like the veteran overland zones and how little they were played. But no one outside these forums is speaking of it that I've seen.

    They didn't like stupid mobs with senseless health and damage buffs. Making enemies not worthless in a fight isn't the same as padding those enemies who do nothing but run from fights or blow bubbles. Does that make sense?

    That wasn't it at all. They didn't like difficult things in the story.

    Some people don't like difficulty in their stories, other people, as clearly shown in this thread, aren't like you. Some people like it when an end of the world threat is able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Do you not understand that other people can seek enjoyment from things you don't personally enjoy?

    And vice versa. But it all comes down to what the majority wants and what is feasible.

    The majority don't use companions, yet they exist. Not every thing added to the game needs to be for everyone.

    Don’t know what you play on, but companions are everywhere on PS4.
This discussion has been closed.