800k people don't seem to mind difficult overworld

LadyLethalla

Iccotak wrote: »

The Main Story is a major let down every time because it hyped up a Big Bad who is in all actuality extremely easy and boring to beat.

Even if you nerf yourself it’s just a longer fight with bare minimum mechanics designed for beginners.

I cannot emphasize enough how much this design choice completely ruins the main story of installments and the overall year long story.

Main Story bosses (and mini-bosses) NEED difficulty options.

Story instances should have a Solo/Group & Difficulty setting

—————————————

Heck, Delves need difficulty options. I did a delve that was connected to 2 side quests which hyped up a dangerous argonian necromancer only for him to be a total punk.

—————————————

For a game that focuses so much on combat, the only engaging PvE combat is relegated to unrelated endgame group content.

Solo play is often incredibly boring when it comes to combat gameplay and that often undermines the story.

People want engaging gameplay with their story and exploration.

I don't want to play through the vanilla zone content more than once, with the exception of maybe a couple of relatively quick quests I can do to get a skill point. I played the game prior to One Tam, where going into the next zone before you levelled up sufficiently meant it was a constant struggle to do anything that involved fighting. Hell, I quit in the first few months of release because I couldn't solo a dolmen, and being in Australia means that the server is a lot quieter at the time I usually play.
I don't care if it takes a few light attacks to kill mobs and a couple of rotations to kill a quest boss. So... no thanks to harder overland - unless it was an option.

Iccotak

Jack-0 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The 800k people who don't seem to mind difficult overland are right where they need to be... in a game that provides that. They aren't spending time in a game that doesn't then requesting it be changed to their play style.

Rich Lambert recently answered the request for veteran quests and delves, and his stand on this is very clear.

"Can we get a vet mode for delves and quests? Uh, so we had that ... at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out. We put the challenge into World Bosses, and into solo Arenas, and into Dungeons and Trials." - Rich Lambert

https://clips.twitch.tv/BovineLovelyGrassTakeNRG-IGkmH8s1XHeD9P2u

That’s really disappointing and Rich Lambert is wrong, I highly enjoyed doing Cadwell’s gold and silver, so no, not everybody hated it.

Also, my main character is a tank, with tank CP and attributes, who I throw some assorted stam dps gear on when I’m doing overworld content. So he’s not specced for dealing damage, his gear isn’t particularly meta for the task..and yet overland is still ludicrously easy and those so-called bosses die in seconds. It renders the story lines a complete joke, how can you buy into the fantasy when there is literally zero challenge?

It’s a massive shame because I *enjoyed* having to work hard to progress through silver and gold, even if it did mean pretending to be a dirty AD or DC

Blood for the Pact! 🩸🩸🩸

also same, exact same situation - I main a tank.

But yeah I cannot get invested or immersed in the fantasy when the Main Antagonist is a Zero threat to me in the gameplay.

Like if combat doesn’t really matter in the story at all then just play a cutscene for the boss and call it a day.

JKorr

Vhozek wrote: »

I think we should sit back and take a second look at this game's overworld to make it more interesting and exciting. Bumping up the mob difficulty seems to be a good start. I really doubt many people would complain. The only issue is that it can't just be done as a lone update but rather paired up with a sort of re-launch or massive event advertising the game. What do you think? What else could be implemented to make leveling exciting and not just a delay to end-game content? Because that's basically what it is, it's just a delay not even a challenging obstacle.

What is this "end game" content you speak of? I've been here since beta, and haven't bothered with "end game" anything.

There is a, possibly large, portion of the players who are actually interested in playing the stories, doing the questing, and exploring the world. For the non-competitive, rather be picking flowers and decorating my houses players really aren't interested in ramping up the difficulty of normal content. There is no point at all in damage sponge enemies for the sake of "difficulty". There isn't a lot of interest in being the ultimate uber-leet personification of destruction when you aren't interested in pvp and don't care whether someone else kills your character or not as long as you get to finish the story quest you're on.

Until there is some means of splitting the "worlds" so the uber hard core "Dark Souls is too easy" difficulty junkies are not the governing factor for the normal story-questing flower picking house decorating players, "let's make Dark Souls look as easy as Barbie Pearl Princess" ideas aren't going to get much traction.

mague

Jack-0 wrote: »

Also, my main character is a tank, with tank CP and attributes, who I throw some assorted stam dps gear on when I’m doing overworld content. So he’s not specced for dealing damage, his gear isn’t particularly meta for the task..and yet overland is still ludicrously easy and those so-called bosses die in seconds. It renders the story lines a complete joke, how can you buy into the fantasy when there is literally zero challenge?

I have a lvl 50 stamsorc with gerneric crafted level 1 white items (no set, no runes) and it is to easy. I tried it to see if it is the powercreep from sets or low level buff, but it is not. Overland is hopeless broken.

Kamatsu

Jack-0 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

"Can we get a vet mode for delves and quests? Uh, so we had that ... at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out. We put the challenge into World Bosses, and into solo Arenas, and into Dungeons and Trials." - Rich Lambert

https://clips.twitch.tv/BovineLovelyGrassTakeNRG-IGkmH8s1XHeD9P2u

That’s really disappointing and Rich Lambert is wrong, I highly enjoyed doing Cadwell’s gold and silver, so no, not everybody hated it.

Rich Lambert knows more than you - he would have access to the actual statistics of how many players actually did Silver & Gold. Maybe he should have said "The majority did not do it" instead of nobody - but his point is still correct in that it was not a popular aspect/part of the game. I'm happy for you that you liked it, but you =/= everyone.

From the onset of ESO up till when Cadwell's silver & Gold were removed there was a common theme from many players who did do them - how empty they were, how they could go back to 'normal' and the game was teeming with players, but Silver/Gold had hardly anyone playing there. You will still find ppl posting here on these forums to this day who state they remember Silver/Gold being barren of people.

This is why they scrapped the whole Silver & Gold aspect - because so few peopple played it, and they had quite a lot of achievements , loot, story, etc tied behind it - ppl were more inclined to run run 3 characters to get the 3 alliance stories than run 1 character through everything.

Same goes with Craglorn - it was supposed to the the big, bad, super-hard "must group" area. After the initial rush of interest, most people stopped going. Why? Because it was too difficult, because it was forced grouping or never go the story. Yes it had it's die-hard players... ppl who farmed mats, or did the events, and some who would group up for the story.

However once again, Zenimax admitted the majority of players avoided the zone. Most players had not done any of the story at all. Thus it was changed, so the main storyline in Craglorn could be done solo.

See a trend here?

---

Looking at the number of people playing New World right now is irrelevant. It's the new shiny MMO on the scene, with lots of twitch streamers playing it, lots of interest, etc. So yes it's obviously going to have a lot of ppl playing it right now.

A more realistic thing would be to come back in 3+ months and see how many are still playing it, what the game is like at that time, how the PvP is doing, how the open-world PvP (if any - I don't know if there is), etc. Only then can you possible try and compare how liked/unliked the gameplay/difficulty/etc is.

---

On another note, and this is actually extremely relevant to ESO: I've seen someone say they've never seen another MMO which made it's overland combat/questing/etc as easy as ESO. I guess they've never played Guild Wars 2.

GW2's base game open-world combat was fairly dead easy, you could solo just about everything (there was only a few specific 'world boss' fights that couldn't be solo'ed), and there was no forced grouping or anything.

People like those who create these "Make ESO Overland harder!" threads did the same over there. They spent years whining to ANet that the overland was too easy, not complicated enough, not challenging enough, etc. In the same way as they do here... over and over again the same type of arguments were made.

ANet listened, and when the 1st expansion came out... it was more difficult, harder to solo, more group focused, more content locked behind stuff that would require finesse to do or groups, etc. It was exactly what the 'hardcore' had been asking for... and these ppl sung it's praises on the forums.

Within a week or 2 of launch however the official forums filled up with thread after thread of people complain about how difficult it was, how it was too hard for them to just move around the maps, how they struggled to do map events and such. Soon afterwards the threads changed to people complaining how empty the expansion maps were, how they were struggling to do group events all due to lack of players - they were using party/group finder with multiple ppl jumping around spamming it and still couldn't finish events or difficult content. It wasn't just the expansion maps that suffered, ppl were reporting the base game's population was down dramatically as well.

ANet listened to ppl who make these kinds of threads. The result?

- They had the biggest 6 month loss of revenue that they have ever had (before & afterwards). They lost 66-67% revenue in the 6-months after the 1st expansion launched.

Now while you will expect to lose revenue in a period after an expansion - ie revenue goes up due to expansion sales, and early game dlc sales, then once that's over it'll go back to normal - it's not normal, or expected for the revenue to drop that dramatically. You can look at what happened with the revenue after GW2's 2nd expansion: it only dropped 43% revenue over it's 'peak' increase. This is more inline with what you would expect.

The difference? ANet listened and made their 2nd expansion more easy, more solo friendly, and more attuned to the casual player. The revenue reflects that once they moved back into this direction, they stopped hemorrhaging players.

Yes, they were hemorrhaging players after the 1st expansion - it was so bad that they had to make a public apology & statement, apologizing for making it too hard for most players. They had to go and nerf a lot of what ppl were struggling with - moving mobs further apart, changing class-essential stuff from being locked behind group-orientated content to stuff that could be solo'ed, downgrading many events from group-only to being able to be soloed, etc.

This is relevant to ESO - because like ESO, GW2's base game open-world difficulty was fairly easy. Like each other, both games have had their vocal calls on their respective forums to raise the difficulty of said open-world content... with both saying that players would adapt, ppl would get better, that only a small fraction would be left behind, and that making stuff harder would attract hordes of new players.

Well, looking at GW2 & it's Heart of Thorns expansion... we can see just how well that went. Combined with how well ESO's own "Cadwell's Silver", "Cadwell's Gold", & the initial release of Craglorn went.... making ESO's overland more difficult to suit the extreme minority of forumgoers would be an unmitigated disaster for ESO.

---

However as I've said every time I've responded to one of these threads. If those pushing this instead pushed Zenimax to offer alternate server's / instances for players where mobs had better ai, better skillsets, etc to make the game more difficult and challenging for them while leaving the rest of the playerbase to be in the 'not difficult' normal gameplay that the majority likes... I'd 100% back that.

Now that Microsoft owns Zenimax, maybe those who seek more difficult overland could start asking them to spend some money on ESO server equipment so new instances/server's could be implemented that has a harder overland for those who like it. I'd say that you'll probably have more luck now that previously when Zenimax wasn't owned by Microsoft.

Amottica

Iccotak wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

...then I think it is worth considering that on some level Rich Lambert is wrong and that they need to change their approach.

I believe that Rich Lambert has a good grasp of what is good for the game based on how people are playing and what features are being utilized.

I agree. Rich and company see the real metrics for ESO and have the best gauge of what is working and what is not. From what I have read from many sources ESO is doing very well and the population of the game seems very healthy.

I think it is interesting how players in this community will often accuse the developers of not playing their own game when it comes to discussing feedback.

But as soon as some hear feedback that they don’t like, or disagree with, then they’ll say; “Well the developers know what’s best”

I do not think I have ever accused developers of not playing their game. So this is not the case with my comment.

I expect some do play the game outside of work though not to the degree we do as it is probably healthy to try something different. Regardless of how much or even if they play their game the fact does remain they access to real information that we do not.

RisenEclipse

Here's a handy tip! If you're going to add some weird statistic to your argument to make your argument have more merit then it does, then you need to offer the proof and where that number even came from. I can say 800K people just LOVE grinding out rare items and ZOS needs to make drop rates even harder for everyone! So if you can't offer evidence of things pulled out of your bum, then don't expect anyone to take it seriously...

Parasaurolophus

Overland eso has never been difficult. The claim that OT has made locations more casual is a misconception. Mobs of your level have always been easy to kill, with perhaps a few exceptions. The main problem was that we couldn't explore the locations freely. We could only go along a given route, because the level of mobs increased as we moved along the location. But it was still the same boring overland as it is now. Silver and Gold finished so few people, then that many players did not find the overland interesting. Having passed the locations of their alliance, very few people wanted to complete twice more. You went one location after another, one after another ... And nothing changed. The level of mobs was growing, but it was pointless. And the quality of the vanilla locations in comparison with the numbered parts of the series was terrible. So there was no difficulty. The game was saved by the appearance of veteran dungeons and trials. High-end content has appeared in the game. Scaling content. Cancellation of the required subscription. Release of new dlc. New advertising campaign.

Amottica

@RisenEclipse

I agree with what you said about taking the time to demonstrate the information provided is accurate. Below is a link to an article that seems to pegs Steam sales of the game at over 700k as of 9/28. I do not think this includes purchases made outside of Steam.

https://www.geekwire.com/2021/amazons-new-world-already-steams-played-new-game-2021/

However, this does not mean all those people agree with the statement made in the OP and title. Heck, much of the game is very easy and I expect most of those players will quit the game which would toss the premise of this thread into doubt. The game is also a very different business model which makes comparisons of copies sold and active players more like apples to oranges.

Blood_again

Vhozek wrote: »

I think we should sit back and take a second look at this game's overworld to make it more interesting and exciting.

I saw you already asked this question in a various manner at least five times. You've got lots of clear answers before. Asking one more time just make less weight to same questions, if you don't read answers.

Also please, if you're so eager to play overland instead of other aspects of the game and look deep inside it's concept, could you at least call it overland?

SkillzMFG

[snip]

Guess what, every good MMO in the last 20 years became good by stealing ideas from other mediocre MMOs, adding them to their already good game, and expanding upon them. If something gets positive feedback and obviously works, there is no reason not to consider implementing it in your own game. For profit at least, if not anything else.

[edited for baiting]

etchedpixels

mague wrote: »

I have a lvl 50 stamsorc with gerneric crafted level 1 white items (no set, no runes) and it is to easy. I tried it to see if it is the powercreep from sets or low level buff, but it is not. Overland is hopeless broken.

More - you've learned how to master the game. You don't even need the white items really once you do. However overland is actually quite hard when you first start playing, because you have to learn the game.

It's easy to say "make it harder" but what is harder - it's not more HP, armour or damage back as the fact you can do it in underpants shows. That just makes it longer. If you want to make the mobs smarter then that's a big project - updating the engines, reworking the AI, figuring out how to scale it all on the server side and not introduce more loag.

Alternatively if you want "mobs" that don't all stand around like lemons the path is PvP.

Pauwer

I did enjoy the overland game before one tamriel. I was horribly bad, died all the time during quests etc. But it was more fun, it really felt like an achievement to finish stuff. And i played cadwells silver and gold. When one tamriel came out, i felt like they ruined my game.

Then i found pvp and got to die and achieve stuff again. I now only play pvp.

SilverBride

Iccotak wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Edit: I don't know how to clip part of a twitch stream but Rich continues his discussion on veteran overland and makes it very clear that this will not happen. You can watch his entire reply, including his answer to an optional vet mode, from 1:48:00 through 1:51:11 on the link below.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1133028256?t=1h48m0s

There’s a problem with his reasoning though.

As others have said in the past they swung the pendulum too far in the other direction...

...Further more Rich contradicts himself when he says story is solo-able when dlc dungeons are now officially part of year long stories.

Because now there are solo players criticizing that they miss out on story in those dungeons.

Rich agrees that there are alot of players who want more overland difficulty, and that he himself enjoys difficulty, but that there is a huge amount of the playerbase that doesn't. As he said, the statistics don't lie and they are in better shape now than they have ever been.

There is no contradiction with the story and dungeons. I have completed the map on all my characters but one who is still working on that, and completed all the story quest chains. Having any story content in a dlc dungeon has not stopped me from completing overland story arcs. Dungeons have nothing to do with overland difficulty, which is what he was responding to.

Elsonso

Kamatsu wrote: »

Looking at the number of people playing New World right now is irrelevant. It's the new shiny MMO on the scene, with lots of twitch streamers playing it, lots of interest, etc. So yes it's obviously going to have a lot of ppl playing it right now.

A more realistic thing would be to come back in 3+ months and see how many are still playing it, what the game is like at that time, how the PvP is doing, how the open-world PvP (if any - I don't know if there is), etc. Only then can you possible try and compare how liked/unliked the gameplay/difficulty/etc is.

I think that New World needs to make a number of changes before it will have mass appeal. I play it, and it can be an intensely frustrating game. When I say "frustrating", I mean not enjoyable at all. I expect this because it is launch, but they do need to fix it. I will stick with the game, but right now the decks are awash in the storm.

ZOS has solved the bulk of the issues that plague New World. The Achilles heel for ZOS is large encounter performance, which they still need to solve.

New World is very deeply mired a problem similar to the one that One Tamriel addressed. One Tamriel may not be a perfect balance and may result in an overland that is easy for some people, but it keeps all those areas that used to be under leveled actively played.

Kamatsu wrote: »

However as I've said every time I've responded to one of these threads. If those pushing this instead pushed Zenimax to offer alternate server's / instances for players where mobs had better ai, better skillsets, etc to make the game more difficult and challenging for them while leaving the rest of the playerbase to be in the 'not difficult' normal gameplay that the majority likes... I'd 100% back that.

Now that Microsoft owns Zenimax, maybe those who seek more difficult overland could start asking them to spend some money on ESO server equipment so new instances/server's could be implemented that has a harder overland for those who like it. I'd say that you'll probably have more luck now that previously when Zenimax wasn't owned by Microsoft.

ZOS is never going to do this. No business justification. The development, operations, and support are not matched by expected customer demand for the product. That is what I draw from all the statements that have been made on this subject, and ones like it.

Being owned by Microsoft does not change anything. Microsoft knows cloud, but ESO is not a cloud game. It is very much a game that is rooted in traditional datacenters. We can see the mess that the largest cloud provider in the world made of a cloud MMORPG that tried to scale up to ESO.

BXR_Lonestar

Vhozek wrote: »

I think we should sit back and take a second look at this game's overworld to make it more interesting and exciting. Bumping up the mob difficulty seems to be a good start. I really doubt many people would complain. The only issue is that it can't just be done as a lone update but rather paired up with a sort of re-launch or massive event advertising the game. What do you think? What else could be implemented to make leveling exciting and not just a delay to end-game content? Because that's basically what it is, it's just a delay not even a challenging obstacle.

No. Not everyone is a champion point 1600+ with piles of champion points behind them, and if they do, perhaps they want to go back and re-play stories and quests to re-experience the game again. I think the game offers enough difficult content to keep the game fun and challenging so that you always have something to pursue. There's no need to make overland super difficult, as that would make the game inaccessible for newer players.

Jameson18

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

According to ZOS during their most recent stream on Friday 19 million people seem to be just fine with gameplay as it is now.

[snip]

That 19 million is in total game copies sold. They had, per Steam, a peak of 2.5m concurrent players on average since 2017. They also sold over a million copies during covid/2020. While that concurrent player number never yielded a sustainable increase. [snip]

As of last week, after the release of NW, that "800,000" number that's being thrown around, is what they're down from the 2.5m average, on Steam alone.

[edited for bashing]

SilverBride

Jameson18 wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

According to ZOS during their most recent stream on Friday 19 million people seem to be just fine with gameplay as it is now.

[snip]

That 19 million is in total game copies sold. They had, per Steam, a peak of 2.5m concurrent players on average since 2017. They also sold over a million copies during covid/2020. While that concurrent player number never yielded a sustainable increase. [snip]

Steam numbers are not the most accurate indicator because they don't take into account those who don't play through Steam and those who are on console, of which there are many.

[edited to remove quote]

Elsonso

Jameson18 wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

According to ZOS during their most recent stream on Friday 19 million people seem to be just fine with gameplay as it is now.

[snip]

That 19 million is in total game copies sold. They had, per Steam, a peak of 2.5m concurrent players on average since 2017. They also sold over a million copies during covid/2020. While that concurrent player number never yielded a sustainable increase. [snip]

As of last week, after the release of NW, that "800,000" number that's being thrown around, is what they're down from the 2.5m average, on Steam alone.

Actually, the 19 million is the number of verified accounts created since the 2014 launch. It reportedly does not include beta or trial accounts.

Steam numbers are faulty and I never use them to support, or debunk, activity for any game, including ESO. I can start up Skyrim on Steam, let it sit on the title screen for hours, and Steam will count this as me playing the game and add hours to my play time. The same applies to ESO. Steam can't tell what you are doing in the game, or even if you are in the game.

On top of that, Steam is the minority platform on what might be the minority platform (PC). We don't know what the breakdown is between XBox, PC, and Playstation. At one time, Firor said they were roughly equal, and even if that remains the case today, Steam is still the minority of 1/3rd of the population.

[edited to remove quote]

Jameson18

Elsonso wrote: »

Actually, the 19 million is the number of verified accounts created since the 2014 launch. It reportedly does not include beta or trial accounts.

Steam is still the minority of 1/3rd of the population.

Exactly. Saying the same thing a different way doesn't make the fact any different. How does one create an account? They purchase the game. (Unless you're on while its free etc. - or if gotten on a free promo, which makes their sales data even more skewed.)

On the other note, if Steam is in fact the minority platform, and it takes that kind of hit? That's cause for even greater concern.

Jameson18

SilverBride wrote: »

Steam numbers are not the most accurate indicator because they don't take into account those who don't play through Steam and those who are on console, of which there are many.

You miss the point.

If Steam, even if skewed or only an approximation, takes that much of a hit? If it's the 'minority' platform as someone else suggested as well? That's a problem. That is only 1 platform through which the game is sold/played.

It's basic logic. Basic math.

I'm not anti ESO. I'm not going anywhere any time soon. I love the game and want to see things fixed up and running. But someone needs to call a spade, a spade here.

Jameson18

Elsonso wrote: »

We don't know what the breakdown is between XBox, PC, and Playstation. At one time, Firor said they were roughly equal, and even if that remains the case today, Steam is still the minority of 1/3rd of the population.

Sorry for the excessive posts. I'm going back and forth at work here.

As far as Xbox goes, it's been on a pretty rapid decline. At least in the recent weeks for sure. I'm assuming due to the issues with the Series consoles and the game not being playable. Although I will say from current experience, it's not very playable on non Series gens either. At least not if you play multiplayer content portions.

Blackwood is a ghost town. It's an event going on and Xbox is maybe 45-50% complete on the meter. Show up to a world boss and there is maybe 1/4 of the people you normally see hitting them during the regular zone events.

I used to have to be concerned with crashing when a world boss would spawn due to all the people there. Now? It's a ghost town. There's barely anyone around. Double resource node farming? Awesome. They're everywhere. Because no one is there farming.

Katlefiya

Jameson18 wrote: »

On the other note, if Steam is in fact the minority platform, and it takes that kind of hit? That's cause for even greater concern.

Huh? New World by design requires a steam account to play, so of course it is the ESO players of Steam that will take a large hit while some of these players might try out this new MMO in town.

Jameson18

Katlefiya wrote: »

Huh? New World by design requires a steam account to play, so of course it is the ESO players of Steam that will take a large hit while some of these players might try out this new MMO in town.

Fair point. It also for sale on/through amazon though. (Lol you conveniently get stuff for being a prime member to. Imagine that. - Totally expecting some pay to win coming on that one.)

temerley

[snip]

IC is a hard “overland” because of pvp and it’s dead, VR instances, old crags….. so yeah, no market for difficult overland.

Same as pvp, there’s no point cause money is not there.

[edited for baiting]

Elsonso

Jameson18 wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Actually, the 19 million is the number of verified accounts created since the 2014 launch. It reportedly does not include beta or trial accounts.

Steam is still the minority of 1/3rd of the population.

Exactly. Saying the same thing a different way doesn't make the fact any different. How does one create an account? They purchase the game. (Unless you're on while its free etc. - or if gotten on a free promo, which makes their sales data even more skewed.)

On the other note, if Steam is in fact the minority platform, and it takes that kind of hit? That's cause for even greater concern.

The main reason for not saying things a different way is that ZOS is not saying it that way. Rephrasing things leads to more rephrasing and before long, people are talking about something that isn't the case. To you, the statements may be equivalent, but they actually are not.

You are over-emphasizing the importance of Steam numbers.

WhyMustItBe

Jack-0 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The 800k people who don't seem to mind difficult overland are right where they need to be... in a game that provides that. They aren't spending time in a game that doesn't then requesting it be changed to their play style.

Rich Lambert recently answered the request for veteran quests and delves, and his stand on this is very clear.

"Can we get a vet mode for delves and quests? Uh, so we had that ... at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out. We put the challenge into World Bosses, and into solo Arenas, and into Dungeons and Trials." - Rich Lambert

https://clips.twitch.tv/BovineLovelyGrassTakeNRG-IGkmH8s1XHeD9P2u

That’s really disappointing and Rich Lambert is wrong, I highly enjoyed doing Cadwell’s gold and silver, so no, not everybody hated it.

Same. Plus this is a non sequitur. No one is asking to go back to veteran zones. What people are asking for is an OPTION to play them that way, and people here are basically saying "no, I don't want to allow you to play the way you like even though it doesn't effect me in any way."

Hallothiel

What people are asking for is an OPTION to play them that way, and people here are basically saying "no, I don't want to allow you to play the way you like even though it doesn't effect me in any way."

No they are not saying that.

There are comments about the viability of this, including dev cost & time; there are comments about the necessity for the suggestions; there are comments about the practical & technological aspects also.

And actually a hard mode overland option would affect all players, and so their opinions on this are valid.

SilverBride

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

No one is asking to go back to veteran zones. What people are asking for is an OPTION to play them that way, and people here are basically saying "no, I don't want to allow you to play the way you like even though it doesn't effect me in any way."

I am not against anyone playing the way they like as long as it remains within the confines of what is good for the game. Optional veteran levels would affect everyone as I will reiterate below.

• It would separate the playerbase
• It would give an unfair advantage to end game players IF there were increased rewards and drops
• It would turn overland into end game content, which has never been its intended purpose
• It would take time, manpower and cost that is better spent on issues that would benefit everyone

Rich Lambert recently discussed veteran levels in a Twitch stream that I linked in a previous post, and basically said no to the request.

Elsonso

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

No one is asking to go back to veteran zones. What people are asking for is an OPTION to play them that way, and people here are basically saying "no, I don't want to allow you to play the way you like even though it doesn't effect me in any way."

Just to be clear, what I am saying is that I don't want ZOS to spend time on a feature that the bulk of the game population is not asking for when working that feature will distract them from things they think more people will be interested in.

ZOS seems to agree with me.