800k people don't seem to mind difficult overworld

Franchise408

xgoku1 wrote: »

500k people enjoy waiting in queues!

I haven't had a single queue over at New World...

furiouslog

NagualV wrote: »

Answer me this, yes or no - "hardcore pvp'ers" requested that objective modes be eliminated and only DM be a BG mode. The answer is no - the company made the decision to structure the test the way they did. Do you think they werent aware there would be backlash from those who prefer objective based modes?

Finally, let's not pretend/ignore this test coincides with the release of a game that is highly attractive to "hardcore pvp'ers".....

It isnt fair to accuse the DM people of being responsible for something they didnt even request.

There are plenty of posts on this forum where BG players did exactly that, but I agree that the test was a company decision based on what they found when they looked at the data, and that the requests were just a symptom of the data-based issue. So I think the answer is yes, but without any causality implied.

What we can blame DM advocates for is just DMing during objective-based maps, which, as a player who prefers the objective maps, made me queue for BGs a lot less due to their inevitable degeneration into chaos.

SilverBride

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

Once again, Rich saying no to future veteran-only overland zones is NOT the same as saying no to the idea of a toggle. Watch the linked stream again. No one was asking about a toggle...

...Until someone can link me a dev specifically responding to a question about an OPTIONAL TOGGLE for veteran overland, I think it would be best to stop assuming what other people mean just to tell people no.

"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." - Rich Lambert

A player specifically asked for an option to give people the choice, to which Rich replied that it is not as simple as just flip a switch. Neither specifically used the word "toggle" but that is exactly what is being described.

Franchise408

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

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

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

Like ESO already did?

You already have stated that ESO changed once. So by that logic, it wasn't logical for you to expect the game to change to adapt to individual players like you.

But it did. Because people like you spoke out and got the game changed to something you wanted it to be.

Now, people like us can speak out in an attempt to get the game changed back to something that we prefer, which it originally was.

Celephantsylvius_Bornasfinmo

Ballermfrau wrote: »

I agree and get rid of animation cancelling.

Get better server. Update lighting further.

There is no animation cancelling like before, you know guys?
If you think weaving is cancelling, well it isn't really you are just speeding up the process by light attacking at the right moment so the transition between skills is smoother.

They fixed 'pure' animation cancelling a while back where blocking would cancel animate a skill.

Elsonso

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Actually, it is not out of context. He has answered this question a number of times, so there are different perspectives in some of the answers. They all basically boil down to a noncommital "no" when it comes to veteran overland.

Once again, Rich saying no to future veteran-only overland zones is NOT the same as saying no to the idea of a toggle. Watch the linked stream again. No one was asking about a toggle.

I get that they would be against creating new Craglorn style "adventure" zones or veteran only zones. But, the idea of a toggle makes a lot of sense: it doesn't affect people who don't want it in any way, but it is great for player RETENTION, as clearly by the volume of posts about it on the forum, a lot of people DO want the OPTION to play overland in veteran mode.

Until someone can link me a dev specifically responding to a question about an OPTIONAL TOGGLE for veteran overland, I think it would be best to stop assuming what other people mean just to tell people no.

With all due respect, you are attempting to finely parse the question. In the process, you are overlooking a much larger picture that answers the question.

If you want to politely ask him about an optional toggle, I encourage you to join the stream and ask. Then, you can get the answer while you are sitting there.

Alternately, you can view all of his old streams, and you will find your answer in there, as well.

SilverBride

Franchise408 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

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

Like ESO already did?

You already have stated that ESO changed once. So by that logic, it wasn't logical for you to expect the game to change to adapt to individual players like you.

But it did. Because people like you spoke out and got the game changed to something you wanted it to be.

Now, people like us can speak out in an attempt to get the game changed back to something that we prefer, which it originally was.

I didn't just speak out, I left, because the game was literally unplayable for me. I was one of the few who actually completed Cadwell's Silver and Gold and all that was left was Craglorn. It was next to impossible to find groups to complete quests because all players wanted to do was zerg around the zone. One Tamriel happened because this was not an isolated problem, but affected the majority of players.

Players have every right to ask for changes they would like to make the game more enjoyable for them. But whether or not these changes occur depends on what the designers think is best for the game. And ESO has thrived since One Tamriel.

Parasaurolophus

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

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

Like ESO already did?

You already have stated that ESO changed once. So by that logic, it wasn't logical for you to expect the game to change to adapt to individual players like you.

But it did. Because people like you spoke out and got the game changed to something you wanted it to be.

Now, people like us can speak out in an attempt to get the game changed back to something that we prefer, which it originally was.

I didn't just speak out, I left, because the game was literally unplayable for me. I was one of the few who actually completed Cadwell's Silver and Gold and all that was left was Craglorn. It was next to impossible to find groups to complete quests because all players wanted to do was zerg around the zone. One Tamriel happened because this was not an isolated problem, but affected the majority of players.

Players have every right to ask for changes they would like to make the game more enjoyable for them. But whether or not these changes occur depends on what the designers think is best for the game. And ESO has thrived since One Tamriel.

Have you ever wondered that Craglorn's main problem is that he was made for the band? Difficult and fun = / = group.

Franchise408

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

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

Like ESO already did?

You already have stated that ESO changed once. So by that logic, it wasn't logical for you to expect the game to change to adapt to individual players like you.

But it did. Because people like you spoke out and got the game changed to something you wanted it to be.

Now, people like us can speak out in an attempt to get the game changed back to something that we prefer, which it originally was.

I didn't just speak out, I left, because the game was literally unplayable for me. I was one of the few who actually completed Cadwell's Silver and Gold and all that was left was Craglorn. It was next to impossible to find groups to complete quests because all players wanted to do was zerg around the zone. One Tamriel happened because this was not an isolated problem, but affected the majority of players.

Players have every right to ask for changes they would like to make the game more enjoyable for them. But whether or not these changes occur depends on what the designers think is best for the game. And ESO has thrived since One Tamriel.

And I know people who have left or won't join due to how easy the game is. I know I, myself, refuse to engage in any questing in this game due to how mind numbingly tedious and boring it is.

But on the subject of the thread - while I am in favor of more difficult overland, New World is a bad example, as people have said, it's the brand new shiny toy and first week populations aren't an accurate reflection. We'll see if people stick with it. I know I don't have a fully developed opinion on the game yet myself either. It does feel very ESO'y. I need to see what deeper content it has in store, because if all it is is a newer, prettier version of the ESO formula, I'll just stay with ESO.

SilverBride

Franchise408 wrote: »

And I know people who have left or won't join due to how easy the game is. I know I, myself, refuse to engage in any questing in this game due to how mind numbingly tedious and boring it is.

That is unfortunate. I know I didn't want to leave back when I did, but I literally couldn't do anything in game after a certain point.

But as Rich said “I totally hear you on the difficulty thing. I like things to be more difficult. But the data doesn’t lie. And we have never been more successful than where we are today.”

NagualV

furiouslog wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

Answer me this, yes or no - "hardcore pvp'ers" requested that objective modes be eliminated and only DM be a BG mode. The answer is no - the company made the decision to structure the test the way they did. Do you think they werent aware there would be backlash from those who prefer objective based modes?

Finally, let's not pretend/ignore this test coincides with the release of a game that is highly attractive to "hardcore pvp'ers".....

It isnt fair to accuse the DM people of being responsible for something they didnt even request.

There are plenty of posts on this forum where BG players did exactly that, but I agree that the test was a company decision based on what they found when they looked at the data, and that the requests were just a symptom of the data-based issue. So I think the answer is yes, but without any causality implied.

What we can blame DM advocates for is just DMing during objective-based maps, which, as a player who prefers the objective maps, made me queue for BGs a lot less due to their inevitable degeneration into chaos.

To be clear, you are saying that prior to this test, BG DM players were advocating for the entire removal of objective queues, and the existence of only DM?...that's what I was referring to? If so, i stand corrected, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but I dont recall seeing that prior to the announcement of the test

I cant disagree that it's not cool to disregard objectives.....

tohopka_eso

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

And I know people who have left or won't join due to how easy the game is. I know I, myself, refuse to engage in any questing in this game due to how mind numbingly tedious and boring it is.

That is unfortunate. I know I didn't want to leave back when I did, but I literally couldn't do anything in game after a certain point.

But as Rich said “I totally hear you on the difficulty thing. I like things to be more difficult. But the data doesn’t lie. And we have never been more successful than where we are today.”

I'm with you on this. I beta back in the beginning, gave my feedback and thought it was too difficult. I just wanted to quest and relax. not rely on grouping. I did that back in EQ and early EQ2, in EQ2 they ended up redoing the entire game due to the same issue's. I quit when ESO's beta was finished, but I lurked on the forums hoping. I did try it once more but still didn't like it.

When I heard about it finally hitting xbox I gave it a go. I tried craglorns and never wanted to step inside that zone again when I found I couldn't solo. I came back to ESO on PC because I am a fan of Elder Scrolls. When I beta'd for ESO I just remember endgame was PVP but majority was PVE.

Oh, and before I forget, EQ2 was published as a strictly PVE game. Not long they listened to the few who wanted PVP, they made some servers just for PVP and eventually as the years and griping continued it slowly died. I think there is one server left with barely a decent population anymore. Same thing, devs had trouble seperating gear and skills. I went through more nerfs and tweaks I care to count.

I just had to finally speak my mind, it seems like I see the same thing every couple of weeks. The same evidence brought forth but no one wants to listen cause they don't want to believe what Matt or Rich said.

Callosum

Why are players who are against higher difficulty in open world content always referring to old Craglon? I don't really see this is what people are asking for and even though they made just one zone like old Craglon why are you against it anyway - it's one zone - and with One Tamriel things has changes so much that a zone like this probably would be much more popular than it was at that time.

Still, a lot players are just asking for the possibility to turn on veteran mode on instance based content like delves, puplic dungoens, quest etc... Seriously, how can this be a problem to you. At the moment ESO is the only MMO i have tried where meeting other players makes the open world more boring. Often you have to wait for other player to leave the dungeon just to get some kind of experience out of it. Further, it is ruining the overland experience for at lot of new players when a high CP level comes bye to do some daily quest in a delve in the same zone they are leveling in and just demolishes everything. Tried this first hand when i started the game and i would have loved if just some of these players had ben placed in another instance than me.

myskyrim26

Hamish999 wrote: »

How about no.

74 Agree to this post vs 29 Agree to the OP initial post...

Of course no, hell no! I'm playing since 2016 and I don't find any overlans fight boring or easy.

trackdemon5512

NagualV wrote: »

furiouslog wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

Answer me this, yes or no - "hardcore pvp'ers" requested that objective modes be eliminated and only DM be a BG mode. The answer is no - the company made the decision to structure the test the way they did. Do you think they werent aware there would be backlash from those who prefer objective based modes?

Finally, let's not pretend/ignore this test coincides with the release of a game that is highly attractive to "hardcore pvp'ers".....

It isnt fair to accuse the DM people of being responsible for something they didnt even request.

There are plenty of posts on this forum where BG players did exactly that, but I agree that the test was a company decision based on what they found when they looked at the data, and that the requests were just a symptom of the data-based issue. So I think the answer is yes, but without any causality implied.

What we can blame DM advocates for is just DMing during objective-based maps, which, as a player who prefers the objective maps, made me queue for BGs a lot less due to their inevitable degeneration into chaos.

To be clear, you are saying that prior to this test, BG DM players were advocating for the entire removal of objective queues, and the existence of only DM?...that's what I was referring to? If so, i stand corrected, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but I dont recall seeing that prior to the announcement of the test

I cant disagree that it's not cool to disregard objectives.....

Years of this:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/555274/we-want-to-play-deathmatch

Years of complaints about asking players to play objectives and those players getting trolled:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/422613/please-stop-queuing-for-a-random-just-to-play-deathmatch-unless-its-deathmatch

And now as a “test” it’s Deathmatch only. On a personal level I’ve never seen players I know rail against participation of something so hard because it’s ridiculous. Flag games to many were more fair and fun to them than the DM kill-fest that’s the same as Cyrodiil.

As for what data can be gleaned, coming from a data analytical perspective you’ve now excluded a group that wanted the mode to be more inclusive in favor of one that caters to a select few. It’s a fail in understanding how to get more players in BGs and playing towards objectives. It’s a fail as your testing sample is arguably a much smaller subset of the whole and totally biased.

Very different from a 100% population study of overland engagement which is much easier to do, analyze, and create accurate responsive actions to benefit the whole.

theyancey

For the people that like games like New World I am glad that they have New World to play. I just wish that they would do so and post on the New World forums instead of here. I prefer ESO forums for ESO players

AlexanderDeLarge

theyancey wrote: »

For the people that like games like New World I am glad that they have New World to play. I just wish that they would do so and post on the New World forums instead of here. I prefer ESO forums for ESO players

Which is ironic considering the people who enjoyed the difficulty had that gutted out of the game in The Elder Scrolls Online seven years ago.

Dark_Lord_Kuro wrote: »

It would be a waste of ressources
There is a reason vet overland was removed from the game in the first place

Because the adventure zone concept (Craglorn) was reliant on grouping and phasing mechanics which were completely broken at the time? Because Cadwell Silver and Gold were gated behind a Veteran Rank system that hardly anyone bothered to progress all the way to VR16 because it was so tedious? Because Cadwell Silver and Gold were just other faction's content but harder, content that everyone admits today sucks and is avoided by the playerbase for the most part?

The reasons Cadwell Silver and Gold were removed were systemic and certainly not "because players hate difficulty". This sort of revisionist history taking place is ridiculous to anyone that actually played the game at launch.

trackdemon5512

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

theyancey wrote: »

For the people that like games like New World I am glad that they have New World to play. I just wish that they would do so and post on the New World forums instead of here. I prefer ESO forums for ESO players

Which is ironic considering the people who enjoyed the difficulty had that gutted out of the game in The Elder Scrolls Online seven years ago.

Dark_Lord_Kuro wrote: »

It would be a waste of ressources
There is a reason vet overland was removed from the game in the first place

Because the adventure zone concept (Craglorn) was reliant on grouping and phasing mechanics which were completely broken at the time? Because Cadwell Silver and Gold were gated behind a Veteran Rank system that hardly anyone bothered to progress all the way to VR16 because it was so tedious? Because Cadwell Silver and Gold were just other faction's content but harder, content that everyone admits today sucks and is avoided by the playerbase for the most part?

The reasons Cadwell Silver and Gold were removed were systemic and certainly not "because players hate difficulty". This sort of revisionist history taking place is ridiculous to anyone that actually played the game at launch.

Rich Lambert notes that players will always take the easiest and fastest approach to completing content.

“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 then why do it? The satisfaction is 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.“

This also factors into why not add back vet overland or a difficulty slider. MMORPGs a built upon replay-ability. To come back day after day and repeat content, to build collections, etc.

If a slider for overland was made the developers have to insure that players can still complete content with the difficulty set to maximum. That’s testing for all content again then. They would have to develop and tweak all content going forward for the same. You’re adding hundreds of unnecessary development hours into that alone.

And then when players complete content the first time will they just drop the difficulty down and never come back to the challenge? How many players, with all of their monster masks and set collections, no longer run vet instances?

I know I’ve run vet DLC dungeons hundreds of times. After a while players just go thru for the farm or the story, not the challenge. And then development is wasted. The same can be said for overland.

Difficulty sliders are a waste of time.

Tandor

theyancey wrote: »

For the people that like games like New World I am glad that they have New World to play. I just wish that they would do so and post on the New World forums instead of here. I prefer ESO forums for ESO players

Don't underestimate the number of people playing both games. Besides, it's natural when a new game comes out to make comparisons between it and existing ones.

Elsonso

Tandor wrote: »

theyancey wrote: »

For the people that like games like New World I am glad that they have New World to play. I just wish that they would do so and post on the New World forums instead of here. I prefer ESO forums for ESO players

Don't underestimate the number of people playing both games. Besides, it's natural when a new game comes out to make comparisons between it and existing ones.

I want to play both games. I do. That is not very easy unless you can get into NW early in the day before the other 2000 players wake up.

SilverBride

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

The reasons Cadwell Silver and Gold were removed were systemic and certainly not "because players hate difficulty". This sort of revisionist history taking place is ridiculous to anyone that actually played the game at launch.

I played at launch. It was a real struggle doing Cadwell's Silver and Gold. I stuck it out and completed it once on one character, but it was so unenjoyable that I swore to never do it again.

Rich Lambert really summed up my experience when the said the following:

“People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff. I get that there’s a lot of people that do like the harder difficulty, but a HUGE portion of our player base just wants to do story, and they don’t want to have to struggle with difficult things.”

So, like I said, we went down that route. We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it.”

Kamatsu

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

The reasons Cadwell Silver and Gold were removed were systemic and certainly not "because players hate difficulty". This sort of revisionist history taking place is ridiculous to anyone that actually played the game at launch.

The majority of modern/current MMO players 'hate difficulty'. This has been shown time and time again.

- ESO: failure of Craglorn & Cadwells Silver/Gold.
- WoW: under 10% players in launch and BC ever touched it's 'hard' content.
- GW2: massive 66-67% loss of revenue & player hemorrhaging after making the general 'overland' more difficult.
- EQ1/2: The fact these games have always had pretty small player counts, never reaching 1-2 million iirc.

I mean, I'll point to GW2 again as a classic example:

- base game overland was pretty easy, same as ESO's
- Game had it's own ppl crying to make it harder
- ANet listened, Heart of Thorns was everything the 'we want overland harder' wanted
- ANet suffered 66-67% revenue loss and massive player loss.
- ANet was forced to apologize, admitted they'd lost a lot of players, and nerfed the difficulty.

So yes, fact is while Cadwell's Silver & Gold did have some issues not relating to difficulty - the biggest issue with the majority is just how hard it was. Most ppl who played ESO liked it for it's casual & easy combat & overland... they then hit Cadwell's Silver and suddenly struggled, and stopped playing due to that.

So yes OT came about because ESO was losing players, losing revenue and if they didn't change anything it would end up being shut down due to lack of profit from it. So they made OT, which made it easier & more consistent throughout the whole game, removed Cadwell's Silver & Gold difficulty hikes... and the game has grown well ever since.

As someone else said - the ship for arguing against OT and/or for a difficulty toggle or such has sailed. It sailed years ago. I know we'll keep seeing these threads, and they'll all generally be the same as they always are.

Another interesting info tidbiit: Over the years games such as WoW, STO, LoTRO, etc have all come out and stated that their forums generally only represent 10-15% of their player base. So basically only 10-15% of their players ever visit the forums. I'd say that's likely also the case for ESO as well.

Cireous

Tandor wrote: »

Don't underestimate the number of people playing both games. Besides, it's natural when a new game comes out to make comparisons between it and existing ones.

---> Playing both games <---

Jeremy

An OPTIONAL Veteran Version of the Overland content would be nice for those who want one (like me). And there is no good argument against having one either.

trackdemon5512

Jeremy wrote: »

An OPTIONAL Veteran Version of the Overland content would be nice for those who want one (like me). And there is no good argument against having one either.

8 years of good arguments against it. See every developer comment about it. Look up financial articles about the bad first year of ESO. Look up every subsequent article about Wrothgar as a turning point and 2016-2017 where ESO hit its stride. Then ask every player here that was around during Beta/launch how they feel.

ALL EXCELLENT ARGUMENTS AGAINST AND WHY THERE IS NO VET OVERLAND OPTION TODAY, even as a toggle.

Parasaurolophus

So yes, fact is while Cadwell's Silver & Gold did have some issues not relating to difficulty - the biggest issue with the majority is just how hard it was. Most ppl who played ESO liked it for it's casual & easy combat & overland... they then hit Cadwell's Silver and suddenly struggled, and stopped playing due to that.

This was not the case at all. You are wrong. Cadwell's Silver & Gold has never been difficult. The whole difficulty was that in order to go on quests further, it was necessary to increase the level. At your level, mobs have always stayed easy, no matter if it was 10lvl or 10vet, the difficulty was always the same. The level played a significant role, the difference was huge. Mobs that were 3-4 levels higher than you were simply unkillable. And you couldn't get out of the quest rut - step on the side and the mobs would just tear you apart. Moreover, it was not hard, it was impossible. There is no need to compare it.

Amottica

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Yeah Harrowstorms are really challenging with a difficulty slider and potentially an entire zone fighting it at once.

ZOS realized 8 years ago that the only way you can keep content challenging for a few is instancing. And that’s why every delve and interior quest for Craglorn is instanced for 4 players only.

Ooooooooo how often are people replaying Craglorn quests? How often do I get requests “Please help with Shada’s Tear”?

It doesn’t work and ZOS isn’t going to instance an entire zone for people to challenge themselves solo because it’s a complete waste. And if those same people banded together they just make content easier for themselves and it’s still a complete waste. There is no solution for this in this game.

You don't know this. You aren't Rich Lambert. You don't work at ZOS. You don't have access to any data about what people do or don't like. You only know what YOU like. Yet you keep speaking as if you have some special knowledge about what everyone else who plays the game likes and take it upon yourself to speak for them.

No one should take any of this as anything other than one anonymous forum person's opinion. Certainly not the devs.

[snip]
[edited for baiting]

I would suggest the forums does provide some data that players complained about Craglorn's design. Zenimax heavily adjusted Craglorn as a result and we have not seen anything like that zone since.

Elsonso

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

So yes, fact is while Cadwell's Silver & Gold did have some issues not relating to difficulty - the biggest issue with the majority is just how hard it was. Most ppl who played ESO liked it for it's casual & easy combat & overland... they then hit Cadwell's Silver and suddenly struggled, and stopped playing due to that.

This was not the case at all. You are wrong. Cadwell's Silver & Gold has never been difficult. The whole difficulty was that in order to go on quests further, it was necessary to increase the level. At your level, mobs have always stayed easy, no matter if it was 10lvl or 10vet, the difficulty was always the same. The level played a significant role, the difference was huge. Mobs that were 3-4 levels higher than you were simply unkillable. And you couldn't get out of the quest rut - step on the side and the mobs would just tear you apart. Moreover, it was not not hard, it was impossible. There is no need to compare it.

What was annoying about pre-One Tamriel (and New World, and WoW, and...) is that difficulty depended upon moving through the world at the speed of the character leveling. Too slow and things were too easy. Too fast and there were mobs that eat lowbies as a snack, then pick their teeth with the bones. It was necessary to pick a spot to play the game so that it was a close match to the character level.

cptqrk

Does anyone else laugh when New World is touted as 'better' or a 'new standard'?

Launch of the "biggest and best" new MMO and they only have 800k?

Do these same people forget that NW was supposed to be the PVPer's paradise? Hard Core PVP(tm) was the main draw.

Until the Alpha and Beta came out, and all the Hard Core PVP(tm) things got watered WAY down because of the feedback?

Do they not understand, that because the game was supposed to be Hard Core PVP(tm) that the devs put little to no time into story or plot, because who needs story or plot when you have Hard Core PVP(tm). The difficulty was going to be other players. Have a look at any other so called MMO that focused on PVP and look at the player base of those... Good luck with NW... Enjoy your empty, storyless space.

ESO is formed and moulded on what works best for ESO.

Not NW, not WoW, not OSRS. ESO.

The over world is made to be easy for the VASTLY larger player base of casual players. You want challenge? Do Delvs/Dungeons/Vet Dungeons/Trails/Vet Trials. That's your difficulty progression here.

Giving over world NPCs more mechanics doesn't make the game harder. People already ignore mechanics in dungeons, so what would make them impossible to ignore in the over world?

You want harder, nerf yourself. The Devs will look at the cost to return ratio on implementing "harder" over world content and do what they always do. Pass...

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

The reasons Cadwell Silver and Gold were removed were systemic and certainly not "because players hate difficulty". This sort of revisionist history taking place is ridiculous to anyone that actually played the game at launch.

I played at launch. It was a real struggle doing Cadwell's Silver and Gold. I stuck it out and completed it once on one character, but it was so unenjoyable that I swore to never do it again.

Rich Lambert really summed up my experience when the said the following:

“People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff. I get that there’s a lot of people that do like the harder difficulty, but a HUGE portion of our player base just wants to do story, and they don’t want to have to struggle with difficult things.”

So, like I said, we went down that route. We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it.”

They also said in an interview that the vast majority of the playerbase was moreso into the story side of things.

Edit:

The vast majority of our player base loves the exploration, loves the lore, loves the story side of things. So we focus a lot of our time and effort on that. Two of our four major updates every year are focused on story and exploration. The other two are focused on quality of life, are focused on group-oriented activities with the dungeons or adding new systems.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/10/04/eso-deadlands-new-world/