Overland Content Feedback Thread

Aardappelboom

tokeinskyblu wrote: »

OK lads

I have taken on some advice to make the overland content harder.

Using the armory I have set up a build called gimped.

1. No champion points apart from green tree.
2.no attribute points
3. Only class, armor and weapon skill abilities and passive. (Passives outside these that don't provide advantage in combat I pick up like persuasive will)
4. Only the *** food, drinks and potions that you pick up are used.
5. All white no set crafted gear used.
6. only 1 bar of ability to be used (no weapon swap in combat.


I am using this set up to try and make the main story quests a bit more challenging and fun.

It seems like overland content is made for this kind of set-up aka new characters.

Even with these restrictions on my build the content isn't really that difficult.

Most annoying thing with this is when I see harwostorms or world bosses I need to swap builds. Also if I'm q for battleground and it pops I need to leave combat quickly swap to pvp build before I can enter the battle ground.

All in all I think if you want to slow down the overland quests and main story with providing a little bit more of a challenge this is a way you can do it. Kind of opposite of what an RPG is all about though it kind if works.

Personally I think the new zones and expansions should be made for end game. There is so much content already to get leveled up and all the new zones that are built and coming in future should be balanced for cp 1000+

While I do the same thing, I don't equip any gear, just white, unenchanted weapon and no food or potions.

I still kind of power through most story dungeons, but I agree, it's slightly more enjoyable.

However, since I really like the set building aspect of ESO and I like how you can try different things, this really isn't the way to go for me, if they say you can play how you want, then they should just add optional difficulty and, you know, allow us to play how we want.

SilverBride

Aardappelboom wrote: »

...if they say you can play how you want, then they should just add optional difficulty and, you know, allow us to play how we want.

Everyone already plays how they want. They choose which zone to start in and which order to play through them, which was not possible before One Tamriel. And they choose whether or not to participate in crafting or housing or end game, etc..

Playing how we want means playing how we want within the current structure of the game. It does not mean changing the game into something completely different.

Aardappelboom

SilverBride wrote: »

Aardappelboom wrote: »

...if they say you can play how you want, then they should just add optional difficulty and, you know, allow us to play how we want.

Everyone already plays how they want. They choose which zone to start in and which order to play through them, which was not possible before One Tamriel. And they choose whether or not to participate in crafting or housing or end game, etc..

Playing how we want means playing how we want within the current structure of the game. It does not mean changing the game into something completely different.

So tell me, where am I asking to change the fundamental ideas behind the game?

I've already replied to a ton of your posts, more or less agreeing but just to make my point:

As far as I know the game encourages to use different sets, furthermore the game puts heavy emphasis on the story and the game already tries to offer different challenges for those who want it. The game also features a battle level system to buff/debuff a player to get through the story content.

Just because the current implementation happens to be your cup of tea, doesn't mean that it can't be approved to cater to people like me, allowing the game to keep growing. it's always a good idea to offer options for those who want it.

By the way, you happened to agree on most of my post as we both were fine with optional debuff (take 50% more damage, hostiles take 20% less dmg...) or slider mechanics, This could easily be added to the current implementation of battle spirit or battle level.

There's no downsides to this even in grouped content where two different debuffs are applied this would work perfectly fine. To top it off, leave all rewards as is and sell it as a single player and immersive feature.

spartaxoxo

I don't feel like having to unequip gear or stand around doing nothing is playing how I want personally. A debuff would allow me to continue using my gear while actually playing, and still get more of a challenge.

They could it lotro did with different levels of damage taken increasing based on the difficulty setting of the debuff slider. And letting certain NPCs unleash special attacks on debuffed players that only targets them. That way they wouldn't have to change all the NPCs, just a handful of bosses and elites.

SilverBride

@Aardappelboom

We agree on some things but not everything, and that's ok.

I was just trying to make the point that play the way we want was referring to being able to play the zones in any order we wish and with members of all the alliances.

If playing the way we want meant that everything we do in game would take into account our own personal preferences, well that would be impossible to accomplish.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

If playing the way we want meant that everything we do in game would take into account our own personal preferences, well that would be impossible to accomplish.

Sure. But if playing the game normally can get you to the point that some of your players have to stop playing entirely to be able to experience the quests, then that's an issue worth addressing. I am at that point and I am not an elite player. I am much better than average but well below elite. And I'm doing this with mostly items that aren't from DLC.

ETA

And what I mean by stop playing is not attacking an NPC so they can dialogue, not literally quitting the game

tokeinskyblu

Aardappelboom wrote: »

tokeinskyblu wrote: »

OK lads

I have taken on some advice to make the overland content harder.

Using the armory I have set up a build called gimped.

1. No champion points apart from green tree.
2.no attribute points
3. Only class, armor and weapon skill abilities and passive. (Passives outside these that don't provide advantage in combat I pick up like persuasive will)
4. Only the *** food, drinks and potions that you pick up are used.
5. All white no set crafted gear used.
6. only 1 bar of ability to be used (no weapon swap in combat.


I am using this set up to try and make the main story quests a bit more challenging and fun.

It seems like overland content is made for this kind of set-up aka new characters.

Even with these restrictions on my build the content isn't really that difficult.

Most annoying thing with this is when I see harwostorms or world bosses I need to swap builds. Also if I'm q for battleground and it pops I need to leave combat quickly swap to pvp build before I can enter the battle ground.

All in all I think if you want to slow down the overland quests and main story with providing a little bit more of a challenge this is a way you can do it. Kind of opposite of what an RPG is all about though it kind if works.

Personally I think the new zones and expansions should be made for end game. There is so much content already to get leveled up and all the new zones that are built and coming in future should be balanced for cp 1000+

While I do the same thing, I don't equip any gear, just white, unenchanted weapon and no food or potions.

I still kind of power through most story dungeons, but I agree, it's slightly more enjoyable.

However, since I really like the set building aspect of ESO and I like how you can try different things, this really isn't the way to go for me, if they say you can play how you want, then they should just add optional difficulty and, you know, allow us to play how we want.

Yeah man it is the opposite of how any RPG I have played before is.

Having the game so easy takes any sense of danger, strategy or accomplishment out it.

It is hard to be immersed in a world that does not provide any challenge.

Darkstorne

tokeinskyblu wrote: »

Aardappelboom wrote: »

tokeinskyblu wrote: »

OK lads

I have taken on some advice to make the overland content harder.

Using the armory I have set up a build called gimped.

1. No champion points apart from green tree.
2.no attribute points
3. Only class, armor and weapon skill abilities and passive. (Passives outside these that don't provide advantage in combat I pick up like persuasive will)
4. Only the *** food, drinks and potions that you pick up are used.
5. All white no set crafted gear used.
6. only 1 bar of ability to be used (no weapon swap in combat.


I am using this set up to try and make the main story quests a bit more challenging and fun.

It seems like overland content is made for this kind of set-up aka new characters.

Even with these restrictions on my build the content isn't really that difficult.

Most annoying thing with this is when I see harwostorms or world bosses I need to swap builds. Also if I'm q for battleground and it pops I need to leave combat quickly swap to pvp build before I can enter the battle ground.

All in all I think if you want to slow down the overland quests and main story with providing a little bit more of a challenge this is a way you can do it. Kind of opposite of what an RPG is all about though it kind if works.

Personally I think the new zones and expansions should be made for end game. There is so much content already to get leveled up and all the new zones that are built and coming in future should be balanced for cp 1000+

While I do the same thing, I don't equip any gear, just white, unenchanted weapon and no food or potions.

I still kind of power through most story dungeons, but I agree, it's slightly more enjoyable.

However, since I really like the set building aspect of ESO and I like how you can try different things, this really isn't the way to go for me, if they say you can play how you want, then they should just add optional difficulty and, you know, allow us to play how we want.

Yeah man it is the opposite of how any RPG I have played before is.

Having the game so easy takes any sense of danger, strategy or accomplishment out it.

It is hard to be immersed in a world that does not provide any challenge.

I feel like soloing world bosses and public dungeons is the PVE challenge at end game, and I'm really enjoying taking a companion into dungeons and playing through those alone. So I don't agree that there's no challenge at all in ESO.

That said, I do wish boss encounters in delves and storylines would pose the same sort of challenge as the above at end game. So while I don't like the idea of all enemies being scaled to higher difficulty (that's taking a problem and inverting it into a different problem - feeling powerful by one or two shotting grunts is something we've earned) I would definitely love a veteran overland server phase that scales the difficulty of boss type enemies up.

Kamatsu

Agenericname wrote: »

That would be great, provided the scalability was optional.

I personally dont care about every wolf, spider, or bandit spamming agony in overland. I would be pretty happy with the increase in difficulty in the stories though.

"SilverBride wrote: »

Only if it was completely optional. I don't want my instanced story fights and story boss fights any more difficult than they currently are. I have too many bad memories of wanting to progress in the story but being stuck, sometimes for days, on a story boss fight.

One player's sense of satisfaction and accomplishment is another player's sense of frustration and failure.

I agree, which is why I said in the last paragraph that it should be a selectable option - this way ppl who like it how it is now aren't effected, while those seeking more challenge can get it.

As you said, what 1 person likes another person will not like... and even if the optional scaling doesn't scale up as hard as some would like it, they'd still have it better for their likes than they do now.

Optional is the way to go - however I think doing an optional small-scale test for at least one expansion will give them a better idea of just how much demand there is for it. While I personally prefer the difficulty as it is, I would also be happy if those who want things harder could get at least something so they could enjoy the game (or enjoy it more).

Also note - doing it on a small scale would also maybe allow them to do more than just a hp/mp/dmg buff. As that doesn't really make things harder - what really needs to be done, imo, is both changes to hp/mp/dmg and skill-set changes to make enemies actually more dangerous. Heck, if they are able to even a full on change of enemy composition... although doing that is likely more work than it's worth vs the other changes which are likely just database changes.

Tornaad

I noticed that apparently the Cadwell's silver and gold were a previously existing hard mode, but that it was disabled because it was never used. I think that part of that was not because of lack of demand. I think it may have had more to do with marketing and implementation as well as possibly timing.

I do not know when it got turned off, but I do remember going through all of the Cadwell silver and gold quests. I do not remember if that affected the difficulty or not. But if that was what you had to do to get the difficulty adjusted, then that was way too much to ask.

Imagine having to run through 30 hours of content before you can run through a veteran dungeon.
Then imagine having to run through that same 30 hours of content on each character before you could run through a veteran dungeon.

And then imagine little if any advertising about what you are running through the 30 hours of gameplay for.
When I ran through the Cadwell's silver and gold, I did not get any notification about the idea that it was going to change the difficulty level. Maybe it had already been disabled by that point, but if that was the case, then that would mean it was disabled either right around when the one Tamriel update came out, or some time before then and at that point, I do not know if there was a demand for harder overland content.

My suggestion to enable harder overland content is to somehow work it into the tutorial. You could have the player speak with Mara (or some other divine) give them a vague prophecy of what is to come, and then ask them how hard they want their journey to be. And from there, tell them that they would give them a special artifact that would let the player change how hard things are in their journey at any time.

Given the fact that you already have multiple instances, you could just then dedicate a few of those instances to multiple difficulty levels. This would leave it as an in game reason why things are getting harder or easier. And it would not require the player to run through 30 hours of content to change the difficulty level, with no apparent way to change it back.

Sometimes I want harder content. Some times I want easier content.
Sometimes I want a mind numbingly difficult challenge that challenges me to my wits end. Other times I want to be able to blow everything up in one hit.
Please give me the option to play the way I want to play.

Rockett

Honestly just a veteran mode would be nice for questing and doing overland content. Dungeons have normal and veteran modes, I don't see why overland can't.

xiphactinus

I think the conundrum with overland is population versus ability/desire for harder content. Desiring much harder content for overland is all well and good but it would only be implemented for a tiny segment of the player base compared to the majority of players. Plus how much work/revenue would have to be spent to implement this effectively. I'm all in favour of making overland harder but it is not just me playing the game and I understand and see that some of us struggle with some of the overland stuff as it is. I'm somewhat surprised there wasn't a toggle in the beginning to adjust difficulty. There is also a huge gap in skill range of players which does not help the situation, Not everyone can hit big numbers nor do they wish to. My limit personally is between 50/60k on a good day and that makes overland irrelevant difficulty wise and only one or two WB pose a problem for me so I would like to see a toggle or possibly a difficulty mode unlocked at some stage to offer a little more challenge but I'm ok if nothing happens as I am in the minority. Make it an option and everyone is happy!

Chadak

I still can't see this topic as anything but a goalpost that will never do anything but move, and this whole topic has always seemed to me like it will never and can never do anything but shift the terms of who is annoyed about what.

And if there were difficulty options, I feel that it would immediately lead to endless cries for better drops on higher difficulty modes, which I am absolutely 100% opposed to where overland is concerned.

Lysette

Chadak wrote: »

I still can't see this topic as anything but a goalpost that will never do anything but move, and this whole topic has always seemed to me like it will never and can never do anything but shift the terms of who is annoyed about what.

And if there were difficulty options, I feel that it would immediately lead to endless cries for better drops on higher difficulty modes, which I am absolutely 100% opposed to where overland is concerned.

That is my impression as well. ZOS_Kevin said a few pages back, that there is currently no intention to address this - and that this thread will basically be used as a repository for what people think about it and what concerns they expressed - in case, that they would be wanting to do something about it, what is currently not the case and might never come to fruition. I think as well that Rich Lambert made it pretty clear, that ZOS is quite happy with how popular the current difficulty is, and that they are very much in doubt, that something needs to be changed difficulty-wise, because it creates the desired revenue.

I'm as well opposed to better rewards with increased difficulty - not every effort made needs to be rewarded - like I did something in Murkmire today - and for the first time I talked to those NPCs on the road, having a dispute about something. There is actual dialogue to interfere and mediated the dispute between those NPCs (where intimidation skill can be used). The only outcome of it is, that one or the other NPC will be thankful, no money, no items - it is ok, I like this detail and that there is a dialogue option for this at all, is reward enough.

CP5

They also seemed caught off guard that the card game wasn't well received, and speaking of the interview the answer given was identical to the one given back in December, implying no feedback from this thread or anywhere else has been internalized by the team. It is their game, but that doesn't mean they have an all encompassing knowledge of what areas it could be improved or how, if omnipotence was a tangible skill it would probably be required everywhere.

Lysette

Well, with the card game it cannot be said that it is badly received yet - just because a lot of forum users don't like it, without to even have tried it, does not mean it will be badly received. From what I got from videos, those who actually tried the card game, think it is quite interesting to play, a mixture of luck and strategy - and it looks fancy, have seen it in the twitch stream.

Malthorne

Lysette wrote: »

Well, with the card game it cannot be said that it is badly received yet - just because a lot of forum users don't like it, without to even have tried it, does not mean it will be badly received. From what I got from videos, those who actually tried the card game, think it is quite interesting to play, a mixture of luck and strategy - and it looks fancy, have seen it in the twitch stream.

When ZOS hosts a special stream to showcase a new main feature of their chapter and it only gets 1.4K viewers(from what I saw) how would you say it’s being received?

Daraklus

I decided to revisit ESO for the sake of a video series, and I found this thread as part of my light research, and.... It is the most frustrating thing to read on part of the people who are against anything resembling a challenge for the overworld content, and I cannot tell if they are deliberately speaking in such a manner to try and annoy people or if they really are just so stubborn and unwilling to understand people.

I am a sort of veteran, played the game before One Tamriel and I loved it, in times of struggle during the leveling and when I was laying back and relaxing doing other things. In fact, Pre-OT was when I did the most questing on multiple characters.
Now I cannot even stick to the game for longer than three months, or just feel nauseous trying to level a character.

I also consider it highly insulting for the same people who say "It is easy because it's for everyone" (I have also learned that this is a factual fallacy because NOTHING can be made for everyone. It's certainly not appealing to me that's for sure), all the while ignoring the testimonies from players who come into the game and feel disatisfied because of how easy it is.

I have been posting here before, about a year or several months ago, and I am sure I mentioned how my girlfriend, as a new player, did not enjoy the game and it made her fall asleep. A game's main offering should not be causing people to fall asleep before they even get to the endgame.

And before someone says "Go do dungeons", I just want to ask this: What if I don't want to do dungeons and want a challenge? What if I don't want to run Maelstrom Arena for the 10th time in a week if I am looking for meaningful content? Should I just quit the game then? Well I kinda did already, just came back for recordings.

All I want to say is, ESO is about the only game I know that has an unappealingly easy open world. I've been playing FF14 instead,n game has an infinitely superior open world in comparison. At least there AoE attacks from common enemies hurt and are best avoided.

That is my piece said. I can't say that I am not disappointed yet again by the game.

spartaxoxo

I agree that they need to do something. Continuing to provide such a disappointing experience to not only those of us who are even moderately experienced at this game, but also people who are decent at action games in general is such a major downside to this game. I don't know they won't even consider minor solutions if they really don't think a major one is financially feasible. LOTRO did a smaller scale solution and it's a smaller studio.

The Overland is so easy because it's tuned so that anyone of any ability can complete it. I get why that is necessary. I support it being that easy at the base level with my whole self. It helps people with things that are beyond their control such as being new to games, bad internet, disabilities, age etc enjoy the game world. And is also fantastic for when you just want to relax and don't want a challenge! But just because the basic level of gameplay should remain for everyone (which is statement about ability, not taste) does not mean there shouldn't be optional ways to increase the difficulty beyond the most basic to keep it interesting!

Something that is made to be done by everyone is going to inherently be something that is not to the taste of those of us that seek a challenge!

Give us something. At this point I'd even just settle for challenge banners at bosses!

Daraklus

A bit of a side thought: I saw someone saying something along the lines of "If the overworld is so easy people don't enjoy it, why do I see so many people running around having fun?"
I think that is a bold thing to assume that they are "Having fun", and aren't in the middle of having an out-of-body experience while going around gathering materials or some such.

I know I didn't have much fun playing the game last few days due to the triviality and encountering only ONE enemy in a Public Dungeon that made me move around a bit instead of eating all of its attacks.

I would also like to address another argument posted here along the lines of "It's made for everyone so everyone can complete it regardless if they enjoy it".
I get where the argument is coming from, but it is unrealistic, just because of that last line.

Doesn't matter if the game is so easy that everyone under the sun can complete it, if it's not enjoyable for someone. In fact, it is because it is unenjoyable for anyone that isn't an "Ultra-Casual", it automatically MAKES the content "Not for everyone".

Lysette

I think ZOS had underestimated the amount of players, who played former TES games on "normal" or even "easy", whilst in most forums you read about players playing it in hard or very hard. So ZOS designed it at first to cater to the latter crowd. But as it turned out, that was not successful - a much larger crowd seem to be those who played on normal or even easy, and on that difficulty setting TES has always been rather easy. On top of that the most popular mods where multi-companion mods. Now guess why someone might want to have more than one companion?- Doesn't look like challenge seeking to me, does it?

This said, I'm one of those having played TES on "normal", because it feels the most balanced to me like this - with other settings blocking/armor skills and attack strength gets easily out of balance, due to the way in which XP is gained. And if someone doesn't like grinding to adapt to game mechanics, but rather wants to role play, then "normal" is the best choice. Don't forget TES comes from the role play genre and has it's long-term fan base in the RPG range - role play should allow for weaker and mediocre characters as well - you know, as in "normal people" who get by reasons into the hero role, without to be a warrior or having any martial arts training - isn't that why we all start with nearly no skills at all?- The story-driven way to progress in the game is not the grinding path of "endgame" players and it is certainly not oriented at meta builds.

This is my idea why the game is more successful like it currently is than it was, when it was designed with higher difficulty. It is not just the normal MMO crowd playing TES - that is as well why a whole lot prefer to play solo and why companions are a good upgrade to the game. The original fan base is single player oriented, eventually having NPC companions. This basically shows where ZOS sees ESO's future - with TES6 far out to the end of the decade, more and more single player, who avoided ESO so far will have a look at it - and like it currently is, they might get over their aversion towards MMOs and try ESO.

Ermiq

Lysette wrote: »

role play should allow for weaker and mediocre characters as well - you know, as in "normal people" who get by reasons into the hero role, without to be a warrior or having any martial arts training - isn't that why we all start with nearly no skills at all?

Can't agree with this. Yes, we start in RPGs as a normal random no one. But, it doesn't mean we have any progress just by accidents and just because of our character's will to adventure. No. The random normal no one, due to either his own will or by coincidence and/or story plots gradually gets new experience, learns new stuff, gets equipment, practice in combat and/or conversations, and only because of this all he eventually becomes the one who achieves something in the world. Not because he's a 16 years old shepherd in a small village, but because he's the one who made this long way to where he is now.
TLDR: I don't get it when people justify anything by 'roleplay'. Roleplay should have some logic behind it. If the shepherd not going to become a warrior, he can't defeat the bad guys just because he's roleplaying.

Elsonso

Lysette wrote: »

I think ZOS had underestimated the amount of players, who played former TES games on "normal" or even "easy", whilst in most forums you read about players playing it in hard or very hard. So ZOS designed it at first to cater to the latter crowd. But as it turned out, that was not successful - a much larger crowd seem to be those who played on normal or even easy, and on that difficulty setting TES has always been rather easy. On top of that the most popular mods where multi-companion mods. Now guess why someone might want to have more than one companion?- Doesn't look like challenge seeking to me, does it?

This is my idea why the game is more successful like it currently is than it was, when it was designed with higher difficulty. It is not just the normal MMO crowd playing TES - that is as well why a whole lot prefer to play solo and why companions are a good upgrade to the game. The original fan base is single player oriented, eventually having NPC companions. This basically shows where ZOS sees ESO's future - with TES6 far out to the end of the decade, more and more single player, who avoided ESO so far will have a look at it - and like it currently is, they might get over their aversion towards MMOs and try ESO.

This is also what Lambert said on several occasions, in now-deleted stream content. They were on the path of having separate difficulty levels for overland with Cadwell Silver and Gold zones, graduated overland zones, and Craglorn. Apparently what ZOS saw was that this was the wrong direction and that was fixed in One Tamriel.

That does not mean they won't reverse course, especially if they can get more players into the game that want harder overland content and can justify the work effort.

Lysette wrote: »

Don't forget TES comes from the role play genre and has it's long-term fan base in the RPG range - role play should allow for weaker and mediocre characters as well - you know, as in "normal people" who get by reasons into the hero role, without to be a warrior or having any martial arts training - isn't that why we all start with nearly no skills at all?-

Technically, I agree with this sentiment, but I think that this is the wrong game for that sort of thinking. I hate being the wet blanket and saying this all the time, but I am convinced that this game is moving away from being "character role playing" and more towards being "player focused". The old line of thinking might apply to other Elder Scrolls games, but I think that ZOS is taking ESO more mainstream when compared to the other MMO action adventure games.

If they continue with the trend of being more focused on the player and not the character, I expect that any overland update will be designed according to player focused needs. Character role playing needs probably won't be super high on the priority list.

Lysette

Ermiq wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

role play should allow for weaker and mediocre characters as well - you know, as in "normal people" who get by reasons into the hero role, without to be a warrior or having any martial arts training - isn't that why we all start with nearly no skills at all?

Can't agree with this. Yes, we start in RPGs as a normal random no one. But, it doesn't mean we have any progress just by accidents and just because of our character's will to adventure. No. The random normal no one, due to either his own will or by coincidence and/or story plots gradually gets new experience, learns new stuff, gets equipment, practice in combat and/or conversations, and only because of this all he eventually becomes the one who achieves something in the world. Not because he's a 16 years old shepherd in a small village, but because he's the one who made this long way to where he is now.
TLDR: I don't get it when people justify anything by 'roleplay'. Roleplay should have some logic behind it. If the shepherd not going to become a warrior, he can't defeat the bad guys just because he's roleplaying.

One does not have to be a warrior to be dangerous - assassination for example is not fighting people, but killing them whilst avoiding to get in harm's way. I played in TES games mostly characters messing with the mind of people (illusionist), I didn't fight, if I could avoid it, but made them kill each other and the last one standing, I calmed down and as soon as he turned his back on me, I cut his throat - so where do I have to be a warrior there, it is enough to be a good illusionist and cut throats effectively, when the time for that comes?- Ok, in ESO we don't have illusion in this way, but I can as well avoid direct contact using a long range bow, DoT, hindrance or disabling magic or poisons - there are more ways than just hack and slash.

Of course such a character is not good in a group and therefore pretty useless as soldier. But the illusionist type is pretty common in modern society - populist politicians, marketing strategists, even some influencers - they are everywhere messing with our minds. Sun Tzu put a great deal in the "art of war" on deception and fooling enemies (for example by using double agents, feeding them wrong information) . The modern variant of that are cyber attacks ect.

This doesn't play much of a role in ESO, I just mention it because the idea, that one has to be a warrior to defeat an enemy is wrong - there are more and sometimes more efficient ways. The most efficient ways are even banned from warfare - but those could kill billions with very little effort - like a specialized biological agent targeting specific genetic features of the enemy, which oneself does most likely not have - there is more than sword and board - at least in real life. Brain-power can be a more lethal weapon than muscle power.

Btw a professional soldier doing a good job might get him a medal - but he did just what was expected from him. A real hero is someone, form whom you wouldn't expect such an achievement and such bravery - a soldier on the other side is expected to do his job. He would have to do an outstanding job for it to be heroism.

Aardappelboom

Elsonso wrote: »

This is also what Lambert said on several occasions, in now-deleted stream content. They were on the path of having separate difficulty levels for overland with Cadwell Silver and Gold zones, graduated overland zones, and Craglorn. Apparently what ZOS saw was that this was the wrong direction and that was fixed in One Tamriel.

That does not mean they won't reverse course, especially if they can get more players into the game that want harder overland content and can justify the work effort.

I've seen this argument and Rich's quote a couple of times and let's be honest, cadwell silver and gold + leveled zones were just generally badly implemented for a TES game to begin with and definitely not what people are asking in this thread.

Locking content behind a difficulty gateway is totally different from allowing people to choose how to enjoy content.

What One Tamriel brought to the table is the oppertunity to go wherever you want to go, wich is a trademark of every TES game, in almost every sense this has nothing to do with difficulty, it just so happened that their implementation of difficulty blocked people to go wherever they wanted. That's why One Tamriel was so succesful, not because it was suddenly dead easy.

ESO content drops are designed to be TES like, they are partly single payer experiences, everyh TES player will welcome a difficulty slider, wether it's coupled to the battle leveled system or even a alternative to battle spirit doesn't matter.

Outriders has the same kind of implementation, it's pretty well done and the idea is the same: enjoy the content however you want

Lysette

I guess that is true, pretty much every TES player will welcome a difficulty slider, because we are used to - and I know that I would use it - in some areas of the game, where I think it is too simple, and in others I would tone it down, because I think it is too overdone there. So a slider would most likely be accepted by pretty much everyone. But that is not really, what people here ask for - just making NPCs bullet sponges and oneself a wet noodle, does not solve the problem. It would just be taken as replacement for getting nothing at all - nevertheless it is something which should seriously be considered.

But on the other side, such a slider could be something for everyone, if it could be made even less difficult than it already is - I think I would use that with some quest bosses, for example when latency is so high, that I have a hard time with that boss. I want to be able to get through the content without dying - others play it differently, they are not worried about dying more often - that would be totally unacceptable from my perspective. Nevertheless it happens - lately in a ruin with an abyss in the center - well, when I saw it, it was too late - high latency made me stop too late and I fell into the abyss and died.

I guess for most people the tolerance level for dying in a game is very low - if they die more than once in a short amount of time, they leave and play something else, which gives them a better experience. In the end we all want to "win", even if you get the difficulty you want, you will still want to be able to learn to win pretty much flawlessly every time. And if that is not going to happen, you will give up as well. That is the problem coming with more difficulty - people might just leave if they cannot do the content well enough - for many, if not most, dying (more) frequently is unacceptable and be a reason to leave.

spartaxoxo

Daraklus wrote: »

Doesn't matter if the game is so easy that everyone under the sun can complete it, if it's not enjoyable for someone. In fact, it is because it is unenjoyable for anyone that isn't an "Ultra-Casual", it automatically MAKES the content "Not for everyone".

"For Everyone" never means tastes, because taste is inherently subjective and it is entirely impossible for anything to be to everyone's tastes, even if we define everyone to be like 99%. So statements that some people don't enjoy a thing can in no way negate it being for everyone.

"For Everyone" is a statement generally employed to mean the content is suitable even for small children in whatever the hosting region is. Or it means that it is built so that content is built in such a way that it people of all skill levels or physical shape can do it. Whether or not they have fun, they can get it done. For example, clothes that are one size fits all won't look good on everyone but it has a ton of stretchy fabric that is hides decently well. So it can fit both someone who is very round or someone who is very skinny. It will look different on both of them, naturally. And maybe one of them won't look as nice as the other. But they will both be able to wear it. A clothing store that insists it has sizes for everyone will carry all standard sizes and generally some non-standard sizes e.g 2XL or XS. So that the vast majority of people can shop there. It might not be all the items in the store, standard sizes probably have more variety. But everyone can find something that fits. It's not a guarantee they will like the clothing though.

Nothing can be for everyone taste wise. It would be an entirely meaningless phrase if taste had anything to do with it.

Overland being built for everyone means that it's built so all skill levels have the capacity to complete it.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

I guess that is true, pretty much every TES player will welcome a difficulty slider, because we are used to - and I know that I would use it - in some areas of the game, where I think it is too simple, and in others I would tone it down, because I think it is too overdone there. So a slider would most likely be accepted by pretty much everyone.

This is what LOTRO did, and is a natural thing to be added to a TES game. The LOTRO slider basically put debuffs on you that increased in strength the higher you slide it. At the harder stages, a smaller amount of enemies will unleash special attacks against the debuffed player. I think they should go this route since they are concerned with splitting up players or that not enough people would use it.

LashanW

I've been playing a bit on the NA server lately (I main on EU) without ESO+. My perspective on the overland difficulty changed a little bit.
No craftbag, no CP, no assistants, no friends or guildies to port to, crap gear with traits all over the place, no good potions or buff food and ofcourse barely any gold. Only thing I had was my knowledge about the game and class, and my UI setup in a way that makes it easier for me to fight. (with addons like Srrendar and GCD bar)
Things didn't die instantly, most fights took a reasonable amount of time (base game dolmens took a while actually).
In fact it's pretty annoying to get from point A to B because my horse is slow and I don't have access to Shadowrider passive (from Dark Brotherhood DLC, I got no DLCs on NA server). Hard to avoid aggroing enemies that are placed once very 10 meters. They are not a threat to me but god they make my traveling experience tedious.

Only dangerous period for me was level 1-15 when I didn't have any form of healing/shields unlocked. (dangerous means I had to be very careful of how many foes and what kind of foes I fight). After around lvl 15 there weren't any risky fights in overland except world bosses/events as I had unlocked a healing ability.

But this is an experienced player who knows his class like the back of his hand. I remember there was someone asking for help with a base game world boss I went there with my baby character. The other person was CP900 but he couldn't survive against the boss for too long (he didn't have healing skills slotted, or didn't use them). I managed to do face tank that boss as a low level pet sorc with crit surge as my only healing. So I think actual new players and casual players / players with technical or physical problems probably have their hands full in overland in terms of difficulty.

My problem is that EVERY new overland zone they release is designed solely for such players in mind. So how can players who are good at the game look forward to new overland content? They are excluded and told to go play in their dungeons and trials if they want fun gameplay. I'm not happy to pay $40 for a chapter in which the only meaningful content for me would be the trial. I still bought the previous chapters (Elsweyr and Blackwood for their respective trials) but I'm not gonna do it anymore. Worse, ZoS management probably marked me as happy customer since I paid for chapters and ESO+ for years in the past, despite not being able to enjoy the questing content outside of dungeons at all.

Lysette wrote: »

I guess for most people the tolerance level for dying in a game is very low - if they die more than once in a short amount of time, they leave and play something else, which gives them a better experience. In the end we all want to "win", even if you get the difficulty you want, you will still want to be able to learn to win pretty much flawlessly every time. And if that is not going to happen, you will give up as well. That is the problem coming with more difficulty - people might just leave if they cannot do the content well enough - for many, if not most, dying (more) frequently is unacceptable and be a reason to leave.

Yeah that'd be a horrible experience if it wasn't made optional.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Nothing can be for everyone taste wise. It would be an entirely meaningless phrase if taste had anything to do with it.

Overland being built for everyone means that it's built so all skill levels have the capacity to complete it.

If capacity to complete is the main criteria, then why do enemies in overland/quests generally have 30k+ health? Why not reduce it to 1 HP? Like the critters. Why not reduce health of story bosses to like 10HP? Everyone would be able to one shot all enemies with their bare hands and complete overland/questing content then. Think about it.

spartaxoxo

LashanW wrote: »

If capacity to complete is the main criteria, then why do enemies in overland/quests generally have 30k+ health? Why not reduce it to 1 HP? Like the critters. Why not reduce health of story bosses to like 10HP? Everyone would be able to one shot all enemies with their bare hands and complete overland/questing content then. Think about it.

Because this isn't a walking sim. There is a nominal difficulty level that new player may find a little challenging, but not anything that would actually prevent them from questing. It starts at being a small challenge for new players and becomes trivial for experienced players. All players can complete it, but not all players will have the same level of ease.