Blackbird_V wrote: »I wouldn't call 2 shotting quest bosses and overland mobs succeeding. I'd call that absolutely laughable and boring. Not even close to being fun.
Franchise408 wrote: »So no, the "overland difficulty" discussion is not irrelevant. And clearly, the mods and devs are willing to listen to it, since the conversation was pinned to the very top of the forum with a mod-created thread.
Ravensilver wrote: »Blackbird_V wrote: »If ZoS did an in-game poll where they went through this being OPTIONAL etc. and found a balance between rewards/incentive/whatever then we can get an answer if people want this. Plus, how many threads have been made on this matter? LOTS.
While there have been numerous thread on this topic, they have all been started or perpetuated by more or less the same people. So the player base commenting here and asking for certain things is *definitely* smaller than the player base actually *playing* the game.
Before there is a survey, there has to be a consensus of
- what is *really* wanted
and
- how it should be implemented.
It is always up to an active minority to change things. Those who have decided to remain silent are just excluding themselves from a field of making changes.Ravensilver wrote: »Blackbird_V wrote: »
As for the "ton of work": yeah, it will be, but if players want it they'd do it and be worth it.
And that, right there, is the crux of the matter.
Do players really want this?
Oh, we have, what... 20? 30? people arguing here on the forum? Both for and against a vet version of the game.
But that is such a miniscule portion of the actual player base, that it's more or less irrelevant.
The only way we can *truly* know what *all* players want, is to do a survey. A *mandatory* survey that you have to complete before you can sign in. Then ZOS will know what *all* players - PC NA, PC EU, Console - really want.
What we're doing here on the forum is just airing our grievances... those few of us that actually frequent the forums. If you look at the various threads, it's always the same people posting.
There is one other thing that ZOS does that we can't: look at the data.
How many percent of the active accounts have completed which content? How often? How many percent of the active accounts have completed which achievements? How many percent of the active accounts have bought the newest chapters? How many ESO+ accounts out there? How many players in each zone? What dungeons are most popular, and which version of them - normal or vet?
And so on.
All we're doing here is talking. We don't have access to what *really* influences ZOS: the data. As long as we don't have that, 20 people stamping their feet and whining 'we want vet overland' isn't going to convince ZOS to actually allocate time and money to doing something that *none of us here* really knows whether the paying player base wants it or not.
It is always up to an active minority to change things. Those who have decided to remain silent are just excluding themselves from a field of making changes.[/quote]
It is always up to an active minority to change things. Those who have decided to remain silent are just excluding themselves from a field of making changes.Ravensilver wrote: »Blackbird_V wrote: »
As for the "ton of work": yeah, it will be, but if players want it they'd do it and be worth it.
And that, right there, is the crux of the matter.
Do players really want this?
Oh, we have, what... 20? 30? people arguing here on the forum? Both for and against a vet version of the game.
But that is such a miniscule portion of the actual player base, that it's more or less irrelevant.
The only way we can *truly* know what *all* players want, is to do a survey. A *mandatory* survey that you have to complete before you can sign in. Then ZOS will know what *all* players - PC NA, PC EU, Console - really want.
What we're doing here on the forum is just airing our grievances... those few of us that actually frequent the forums. If you look at the various threads, it's always the same people posting.
There is one other thing that ZOS does that we can't: look at the data.
How many percent of the active accounts have completed which content? How often? How many percent of the active accounts have completed which achievements? How many percent of the active accounts have bought the newest chapters? How many ESO+ accounts out there? How many players in each zone? What dungeons are most popular, and which version of them - normal or vet?
And so on.
All we're doing here is talking. We don't have access to what *really* influences ZOS: the data. As long as we don't have that, 20 people stamping their feet and whining 'we want vet overland' isn't going to convince ZOS to actually allocate time and money to doing something that *none of us here* really knows whether the paying player base wants it or not.
Ravensilver wrote: »So no. The vocal minority should *not* be dictating the future of the game for the majority.
SilverBride wrote: »Blackbird_V wrote: »That breathes life into overland content, which is currently dead.
And not to mention public dungeons are farmed anyway depending on what sets are meta (right now deshaan for sorrow). Dolmens are heavily farmed due to experience... so.....?
Overland is far from dead. Many players still enjoy and spend a lot of time in overland, myself included. And I always run into other players.
I am not referring to current sets that players farm that are available to all... my issue is rewarding players with better drops for an increased difficulty that they asked for and are not required to participate in. The goal has been stated as wanting to feel immersed in the story which is reward enough.
And I am not talking about just green to blue, or blue to purple, or even purple to gold which would be the case for some of the story bosses. Some have also suggested new drops and cosmetics only for the veteran version of overland.
Some players want just the story, other players like my self want story and satisfactory combat encounters/ rewards. There should be option for both
Iron_Warrior wrote: »What i call an acceptable "data" is if they make a poll about this ingame. I don't want zenimax to say what players like without asking them.
[snip] Don't just tell me about the data zenimax, show me so then the people can have discussions about it.SilverBride wrote: »
They know what features are being utilized and by how many.
I am russian actuallyRavensilver wrote: »Actually... no.
Do you see the Germans here? The Russians? The Japanese? The French? The Italians? The players from Oceania?
There are a lot of players out there that don't feel comfortable posting in an English forum, because their knowledge of the English language is just enough to play the game, not enough to actually argue in it.
It's a common fallacy to believe that the vocal minority speaks for the silent majority. But the silent majority can have many reasons for being silent:
- not speaking the language
- not being aware of the forums
- not having time to participate
- not feeling comfortable with leaving feedback
- preferring to *play* the game, rather than talk about it
- ...
So no. The vocal minority should *not* be dictating the future of the game for the majority.
Despite claims that this would be a waste of development time, it would also be the most lightweight addition possible. All the necessary systems already exist to make this happen, because everyone scales anyway. Granting optional debuffs like Battle Spirit is absolutely trivial compared to the development of antiquities or companions. It would reinvigorate old content without the need to develop new one. It's a downright steal for the development team.
If people wanna enjoy the story without a fight, make a movie.
No serious, keep normal overland the way it is, but allow a vet instance for people that want it.
Despite claims that this would be a waste of development time, it would also be the most lightweight addition possible. All the necessary systems already exist to make this happen, because everyone scales anyway. Granting optional debuffs like Battle Spirit is absolutely trivial compared to the development of antiquities or companions. It would reinvigorate old content without the need to develop new one. It's a downright steal for the development team.
If as you say, it would be as simple as say drinking a potion to simply gimp yourself and make what currently exists more challenging for you, with no other changes to the game. Sure then, why not, drink up... I would support that!
Source? I haven't kept up with the discussion in a few months, and am not used to devs talking to us in the first place lolIf people wanna enjoy the story without a fight, make a movie.
No serious, keep normal overland the way it is, but allow a vet instance for people that want it.
And RIch said it is not that simple. Seriously. Those were his words answering the question about an optional higher difficulty.
Even beyond that Rich indicated that the game became immensely more successful with the current design.