Overland Content Feedback Thread

Parasaurolophus

@KoIIegoIas I'm sorry, but there are players like me here who basically didn't notice any difference in difficulty when moving to silver and gold. All that changed was just the level of the mobs. But not more. I think more that the players just didn't want to deal with the boring experience farming that required more and more experience with each new veteran rank. However, I can assume that I am wrong. But even in this case, the increase in difficulty was negligible.

spartaxoxo

KoIIegoIas wrote: »

They did not disgussed or adressed own faction base zone difficulty, because there wasnt any complains.

That's your opinion. It is not something they ever stated. It's not about keeping secrets. They just didn't discuss it.

Lambert says that this probably won't be coming because Zenimax Online wants the entire storyline to be accessible.

"Balance is obviously a tricky thing. What is too easy for one player is impossible for another," he tells us. "We try to balance so that the average player can have a good experience, especially with the main story content. That's our critical path. If they want to challenge themselves, they can go and do Public Dungeons, or Trials with 12 of their friends. We do make that conscious choice with the crit path to make it playable for as many people as possible."

This a quote about current Overland.

So is this one.

“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. And a lot of that has to do with just how much freedom players have to go an experience story.”

And here's another one that was about current Overland. Again they feel the nerf was key to their success. The main focus was on Silver and Gold because it was an example of adding extra difficulty that failed.

You're trying to make a logical leap from "They did not discuss complaints about own zone" to "none existed."

But the game almost failed, and they feel the current design saved it. So clearly they had a reason for that nerf and they attribute it to their success.

Edit:

We get this question or request a lot too. We built overland content to be inclusive because as an MMO we want to unify as much of the player base as possible in a given zone. Difficulty sliders and settings are a detriment to that.

Again, I don't see how these design decisions, which are their justifications for the current Overland difficulty, make sense unless they nerfed to include more people that felt or were left out before.

Edit 2

That's a difficult one because difficulty is definitely subjective. We have millions of players that play The Elder Scrolls Online, and a large portion of them find the game hard and the Overland content challenging, especially as a new player when you don't have gold, all the gear, and Champion Points. Ultimately it comes down to, if we make the game harder, what are the incentives for players to play it at the harder level? That opens up a whole huge can of worms. I also look back and remember we had harder Overland content. We had Cadwell Silver, we had Cadwell Gold, and players really didn't like it. It was too hard for them, and when we did One Tamriel, we ripped all that out based on player feedback. Like, nobody did it. So it's a challenging subject and a difficult question to answer. All I can really say is we're definitely looking at it, but we don't have any major changes planned for the Overland difficulty.

They feel this nerfed version is challenging content to a large portion of the playerbase. But that they have struck a good balance of having it includes everyone with the nerfed version.

They are saying two things here.

1) that they changed the game to be easier to be more inclusive difficulty wise so players had more freedom. And that removing the difficulty from overland in general was a key to their success.

2) that nobody used the old version of optional difficulty, so they don't forsee trying to add an optional difficulty increase again.

SilverBride

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

@KoIIegoIas I'm sorry, but there are players like me here who basically didn't notice any difference in difficulty when moving to silver and gold. All that changed was just the level of the mobs. But not more. I think more that the players just didn't want to deal with the boring experience farming that required more and more experience with each new veteran rank. However, I can assume that I am wrong. But even in this case, the increase in difficulty was negligible.

The increased difficulty of Silver and Gold was very noticable for me. I never died to trash mobs in my own alliance's zones like I did in those. Also, I never farmed experience and I still don't. I just worked my way through all the zones and leveled by completing every quest and map objective, which I didn't find boring then and still don't today.

I don't know why our perceptions are so different but my friend had the same experience I did and noped out and went back to WoW. After I saw how Craglorn was I did the same.

KoIIegoIas

Lysette wrote: »

Well, they could of course make the same mistake as guild wars made - and loose a big chunk of their player base by listening to people like you. The game is popular as it currently is and economically successful. This can change in an instant, if ZOS is making the wrong move with this. When I started with ESO, I could experience the before One Tamriel difficulty for just a few months, then came One Tamriel. I remember it as sometimes too much and sometimes too less, when the "old" zone was getting too easy and the next one was still annoyingly difficult. I had 80ms latency at that time, living 400km from the EU server. It was acceptable with that low latency - but it would most likely not have been enjoyable with my current latency. Would it be doable with the old difficulty?- I guess, it would. Would it be fun?- Most likely not and why would I want to continue dropping money into this game, if it would be no longer enjoyable?

Tbh, I experience this thread already as a threat to my enjoyment of the game, it takes away part of my love for the Elder Scrolls, because I fear that ZOS could be listening to people like you and ruin the game for me. That is why I post that often here - I experience it as stress. I like the game how it currently is and I appreciate the tendency it has - to more casual gaming with new non-combat activities. And everything else in overland provides a relaxed experience, and that is what I want. An adventure, but not a difficult challenge.

People like me? describe people like me pls or nobody understand what you are even talking about. Ping of people living whereever is not a reason for them to make everything easier. Or it wouldnt make any sense to just take Overland into consideration about the ping. If they really would have to care about that aswell, they would be a need to nerf all veteran content aswell, so everyone who lives in the last corner of the world can have a chance to complete it. thats why they have different megaservers.

I dont experience this thread as a threat to my enjoyment, because my main content in Eso is PvP and i never stop to enjoy slaying some zerglings. I gave up overland questlines completly because it makes me feel like a bot. I am just here because i have fun arguing with you people and i hope this never ends.

Lysette

We basically agreed already, that any change to overland difficulty should be optional - and now you come and want to change it back to what it was before One Tamriel. That is what I mean with people like you, who just want it changed to be harder, no matter what. Without to take into consideration, that there are a lot of players, who live far away from both servers - in my case that is 16,500km - about the same distance to both servers. There is no nearer server to where I live, I have no other choice then to play it as it is or give up on ESO. I enjoy how it currently is and I want it to stay enjoyable.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

We basically agreed already, that any change to overland difficulty should be optional - and now you come and want to change it back to what it was before One Tamriel. That is what I mean with people like you, who just want it change to be harder, not matter what. Without to take into consideration, that there a lot of players, who live far away from both servers - in my case that is 16,500km - about the same distance to both servers. There is no nearer server to where I live, I have no other choice then to play it as it is or give up on ESO. I enjoy how it currently is and I want it to stay enjoyable.

He's one of the few that don't want it to be a separate setting but instead a generic forced increase to pre-One Tamriel own zone. I think most of us want it to be optional. And that the devs probably wouldn't go that route. I doubt that they would go back to old, removed designs in general.

EvilAutoTech

@Kollegolas

You may not remember complaints about the quest bosses for your own faction but others do. Why do you think that Doshia was nerfed? How about Sancre Tor? Do you think it was nerfed just for fun? (There definitely were complaints). That's just 2 examples of content that was required in order to advance the to Cadwell's silver and gold.

KoIIegoIas

spartaxoxo wrote: »

KoIIegoIas wrote: »

They did not disgussed or adressed own faction base zone difficulty, because there wasnt any complains.

That's your opinion. It is not something they ever stated. It's not about keeping secrets. They just didn't discuss it.

Lambert says that this probably won't be coming because Zenimax Online wants the entire storyline to be accessible.

"Balance is obviously a tricky thing. What is too easy for one player is impossible for another," he tells us. "We try to balance so that the average player can have a good experience, especially with the main story content. That's our critical path. If they want to challenge themselves, they can go and do Public Dungeons, or Trials with 12 of their friends. We do make that conscious choice with the crit path to make it playable for as many people as possible."

This a quote about current Overland.

So is this one.

“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. And a lot of that has to do with just how much freedom players have to go an experience story.”

And here's another one that was about current Overland. Again they feel the nerf was key to their success. The main focus was on Silver and Gold because it was an example of adding extra difficulty that failed.

You're trying to make a logical leap from "They did not discuss complaints about own zone" to "none existed."

But the game almost failed, and they feel the current design saved it. So clearly they had a reason for that nerf and they attribute it to their success.

Edit:

We get this question or request a lot too. We built overland content to be inclusive because as an MMO we want to unify as much of the player base as possible in a given zone. Difficulty sliders and settings are a detriment to that.

Again, I don't see how these design decisions, which are their justifications for the current Overland difficulty, make sense unless they nerfed to include more people that felt or were left out before.

Edit 2

That's a difficult one because difficulty is definitely subjective. We have millions of players that play The Elder Scrolls Online, and a large portion of them find the game hard and the Overland content challenging, especially as a new player when you don't have gold, all the gear, and Champion Points. Ultimately it comes down to, if we make the game harder, what are the incentives for players to play it at the harder level? That opens up a whole huge can of worms. I also look back and remember we had harder Overland content. We had Cadwell Silver, we had Cadwell Gold, and players really didn't like it. It was too hard for them, and when we did One Tamriel, we ripped all that out based on player feedback. Like, nobody did it. So it's a challenging subject and a difficult question to answer. All I can really say is we're definitely looking at it, but we don't have any major changes planned for the Overland difficulty.

They feel this nerfed version is challenging content to a large portion of the playerbase. But that they have struck a good balance of having it includes everyone with the nerfed version.

They are saying two things here.

1) that they changed the game to be easier to be more inclusive difficulty wise so players had more freedom.

2) that nobody used the old version of optional difficulty, so they don't forsee trying to add an optional difficulty increase again.

That not only my Opinion. Its a fact that there was no Larger scale of people complained about it in the forums. And such like that is also a reason why they didnt disguss it. Why disguss a thing, wich isnt a thing? Why make problems, where noone are? you keep sitting on the fact that they didnt disguss it, just to justify that its possible people complained about. Well, if this is possible then its also possible those complains never existed. Nobody of us can prove it and thats where im keep sitting on.

To get rid of the accessability of the whole storyline they made sure with one tamriel that everything got the levelrange for everything, so nobody had to lvl 20 level to experience that one storyline they want. Also they got rid of the instances to solve that problem of not beeing able to experience other factions story, wich was bad with cadwells silver+gold for those it was to hard for. All that got nothing to do with difficulty niveau own alliance overland itself at all.

About that quote:

''Balance is obviously a tricky thing. What is too easy for one player is impossible for another," he tells us. "We try to balance so that the average player can have a good experience, especially with the main story content. That's our critical path. If they want to challenge themselves, they can go and do Public Dungeons, or Trials with 12 of their friends. We do make that conscious choice with the crit path to make it playable for as many people as possible.''

That was related to cadwells Silver + Gold extra difficulty. Wich they transferred into World Bosses, solo Arenas, into Dungeons and Trials like Rich also said in his Twitch Stream.

next of your Quote:

''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. And a lot of that has to do with just how much freedom players have to go an experience story.''

That data also is related to Cadwells Silver + Gold because according to their data, where people didnt like the extra difficulty of it and 2/3 of playerbase didnt play it and hated it. And again, yes they have so much freedom to and experience every story they want, because they can just go where they want without the worry of needing a certain level.
But that have nothing to do with any own alliance difficulty niveau, because the difficulty could still be there, but it still would be the same difficulty throughout the same lvl and whole tamriel. And i would be fine with that, because that is the only way i can think of, people can go instantly where they want.

And i can imagine that they are never have been more sucessful than they are today, because from one side absolutely everyone is able to complete the current content without exceptions, but on the other side, it doesn't tell us anything specific about a lot of people being happy with the current state. People have no other chance rather than excepting the current experience of the questline without any difficulty. For a lot of people its important that they just can get all their archievements done and let that boring and to easy content of that zone behind them.

Yes we know that their focus was on Silver and Gold because it was an example of adding extra difficulty that failed, but there was no example of how own alliance base zone could fail, wich obviously didnt fail, since the lack of proof.

about this one:

''We get this question or request a lot too. We built overland content to be inclusive because as an MMO we want to unify as much of the player base as possible in a given zone. Difficulty sliders and settings are a detriment to that.''

In my opinion, what they reach with that unify are players wich are fine with the current difficulty and the other side wich are bored/annoyed of it and just wanna get over it. Its just a solution for one camp. What also contradicts the statement that the current overland is made for everyone.

Im dont really like difficulty sliders eithher, because it would create an instance or if not, it would make that enemys are hard for some people. while other player with easy difficulty just run around and farm them everything away, wich would be a big turn-off in my eyes.

Im not sure what you mean with that:

Again, I don't see how these design decisions, which are their justifications for the current Overland difficulty, make sense unless they nerfed to include more people that felt or were left out before.

Probably my lack of english skills.

KoIIegoIas

Lysette wrote: »

We basically agreed already, that any change to overland difficulty should be optional - and now you come and want to change it back to what it was before One Tamriel. That is what I mean with people like you, who just want it changed to be harder, no matter what. Without to take into consideration, that there are a lot of players, who live far away from both servers - in my case that is 16,500km - about the same distance to both servers. There is no nearer server to where I live, I have no other choice then to play it as it is or give up on ESO. I enjoy how it currently is and I want it to stay enjoyable.

I just asked to get own alliance overland back to what is was before One Tamriel. I never want to get Cadwells Silver + Gold back, wich all difficulty negativity was about. Who can read is clearly in advantage.

KoIIegoIas

EvilAutoTech wrote: »

@Kollegolas

You may not remember complaints about the quest bosses for your own faction but others do. Why do you think that Doshia was nerfed? How about Sancre Tor? Do you think it was nerfed just for fun? (There definitely were complaints). That's just 2 examples of content that was required in order to advance the to Cadwell's silver and gold.

Thats doesnt justify a nerf of a complete overland faction zone. There can always be some single things wich overperform. Its also not a complain of whole own alliance overland is to hard. Just because a single ability from class overperforms, you dont have to nerf the whole class into the ground. Good example with current DK and Templars in PvP haha

Lysette

KoIIegoIas wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

We basically agreed already, that any change to overland difficulty should be optional - and now you come and want to change it back to what it was before One Tamriel. That is what I mean with people like you, who just want it changed to be harder, no matter what. Without to take into consideration, that there are a lot of players, who live far away from both servers - in my case that is 16,500km - about the same distance to both servers. There is no nearer server to where I live, I have no other choice then to play it as it is or give up on ESO. I enjoy how it currently is and I want it to stay enjoyable.

I just asked to get own alliance overland back to what is was before One Tamriel. I never want to get Cadwells Silver + Gold back, wich all difficulty negativity was about. Who can read is clearly in advantage.

And this is a threat to my enjoyment - you don't seem to understand that ZOS reduced the difficulty by good reasons. Like a lot playing from SEA, Australia and New Zealand asked for servers in their region, because it is an increased difficulty to play with high latency. ZOS stated that they are not going to provide an ANZ server, because it would feel too empty (what would be true for a pure ANZ server, because we are just 30 million people living in Australia and New Zealand).

It would be a different thing in South East Asia, because most of the world's population are living in that area. ZOS decided against such servers, but it was very helpful for this region, that the overall difficulty was reduced to what it is today. So we can play and enjoy the game despite our high latency issues. A return to before One Tamriel difficulty would leave us behind.

SilverBride

KoIIegoIas wrote: »

I just asked to get own alliance overland back to what is was before One Tamriel. I never want to get Cadwells Silver + Gold back, wich all difficulty negativity was about.

I think it would be a big mistake to increase the difficulty for everyone, especially when many are happy with overland just as it is now. There is just too much potential for losing a lot of players, so why risk it?

KoIIegoIas

Lysette wrote: »

KoIIegoIas wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

We basically agreed already, that any change to overland difficulty should be optional - and now you come and want to change it back to what it was before One Tamriel. That is what I mean with people like you, who just want it changed to be harder, no matter what. Without to take into consideration, that there are a lot of players, who live far away from both servers - in my case that is 16,500km - about the same distance to both servers. There is no nearer server to where I live, I have no other choice then to play it as it is or give up on ESO. I enjoy how it currently is and I want it to stay enjoyable.

I just asked to get own alliance overland back to what is was before One Tamriel. I never want to get Cadwells Silver + Gold back, wich all difficulty negativity was about. Who can read is clearly in advantage.

And this is a threat to my enjoyment - you don't seem to understand that ZOS reduced the difficulty by good reasons. Like a lot playing from SEA, Australia and New Zealand asked for servers in their region, because it is an increased difficulty to play with high latency. ZOS stated that they are not going to provide an ANZ server, because it would feel too empty (what would be true for a pure ANZ server, because we are just 30 million people living in Australia and New Zealand).

It would be a different thing in South East Asia, because most of the world's population are living in that area. ZOS decided against such servers, but it was very helpful for this region, that the overall difficulty was reduced to what it is today. So we can play and enjoy the game despite our high latency issues. A return to before One Tamriel difficulty would leave us behind.

They didnt mention the ping issue you guys have once as a reason why they made content easier. Same with the veteran content difficulty, zos doesnt decrease because of your ping. To talk about that is a waste of time.

Lysette

KoIIegoIas wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

KoIIegoIas wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

We basically agreed already, that any change to overland difficulty should be optional - and now you come and want to change it back to what it was before One Tamriel. That is what I mean with people like you, who just want it changed to be harder, no matter what. Without to take into consideration, that there are a lot of players, who live far away from both servers - in my case that is 16,500km - about the same distance to both servers. There is no nearer server to where I live, I have no other choice then to play it as it is or give up on ESO. I enjoy how it currently is and I want it to stay enjoyable.

I just asked to get own alliance overland back to what is was before One Tamriel. I never want to get Cadwells Silver + Gold back, wich all difficulty negativity was about. Who can read is clearly in advantage.

And this is a threat to my enjoyment - you don't seem to understand that ZOS reduced the difficulty by good reasons. Like a lot playing from SEA, Australia and New Zealand asked for servers in their region, because it is an increased difficulty to play with high latency. ZOS stated that they are not going to provide an ANZ server, because it would feel too empty (what would be true for a pure ANZ server, because we are just 30 million people living in Australia and New Zealand).

It would be a different thing in South East Asia, because most of the world's population are living in that area. ZOS decided against such servers, but it was very helpful for this region, that the overall difficulty was reduced to what it is today. So we can play and enjoy the game despite our high latency issues. A return to before One Tamriel difficulty would leave us behind.

They didnt mention the ping issue you guys have once as a reason why they made content easier. Same with the veteran content difficulty, zos doesnt decrease because of your ping. To talk about that is a waste of time.

They want to be inclusive to as many players as possible, that they can complete at least the main content - this has been mentioned and it implies that as well, because reducing the difficulty includes us into that group, which can do that content more easily.

And don't come with the waste of time argument - the whole thread here is of that kind, because ZOS is not intending to do anything about it - ZOS_Kevin clearly stated, that there is no intention to do anything about it yet. Still, they want to gather feedback about it - and everything which could play a role in their decision making in the future should be mentioned. A possible loss of a player group living in the most populated region of the world is not a tiny issue.

spartaxoxo

That not only my Opinion.

It is just your opinion. You don't know what feedback they received because you weren't privy to all of it. And they have not commented on it. Those statements were not only about silver and gold. They were about difficulty in general. The devs are saying that they removed difficulty from Overland in general. And that they giving us an additional difficulty option before, but it failed. And you can see plainly see the result of their factual nerf of all overland content, not just silver and gold.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

That not only my Opinion.

It is just your opinion. You don't know what feedback they received because you weren't privy to all of it. And they have not commented on it. Those statements were not only about silver and gold. They were about difficulty in general. The devs are saying that they removed difficulty from Overland in general. And that they giving us an additional difficulty option before, but it failed. And you can see plainly see the result of their factual nerf of all overland content, not just silver and gold.

Plus, we got companions, to make it even more accessible. And they are a big help with high latency, because they react swiftly. Mirri is getting the first one jumping on me off me right away by pushing him 8m away from me. Often before I even can react to it. This is all pointing to the fact, that they might still think, it needs to be less difficult, not more.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

That not only my Opinion.

It is just your opinion. You don't know what feedback they received because you weren't privy to all of it. And they have not commented on it. Those statements were not only about silver and gold. They were about difficulty in general. The devs are saying that they removed difficulty from Overland in general. And that they giving us an additional difficulty option before, but it failed. And you can see plainly see the result of their factual nerf of all overland content, not just silver and gold.

Plus, we got companions, to make it even more accessible. And they are a big help with high latency, because they react swiftly. Mirri is getting the first one jumping on me off me right away by pushing him 8m away from me. Often before I even can react to it. This is all pointing to the fact, that they might still think, it needs to be less difficult, not more.

They've made new bosses and public dungeons a little harder but also introduced companions. I think they want to increase the difficulty slightly for those who want it, without increasing the difficulty for those who don't as they'll have "someone" to help them with it 24/7.

Tannus15

Just add a mythic that gives you a whole bunch of combat nerfs in exchange for a whole bunch of loot / xp benefits.

Tannus's crown of overland difficulty. double gold drops, double xp, double crafting mats, increased chance of item from treasure chests, all your stats are halved.

spartaxoxo

Tannus15 wrote: »

Just add a mythic that gives you a whole bunch of combat nerfs in exchange for a whole bunch of loot / xp benefits.

Tannus's crown of overland difficulty. double gold drops, double xp, double crafting mats, increased chance of item from treasure chests, all your stats are halved.

Half isn't strong enough.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

That not only my Opinion.

It is just your opinion. You don't know what feedback they received because you weren't privy to all of it. And they have not commented on it. Those statements were not only about silver and gold. They were about difficulty in general. The devs are saying that they removed difficulty from Overland in general. And that they giving us an additional difficulty option before, but it failed. And you can see plainly see the result of their factual nerf of all overland content, not just silver and gold.

Plus, we got companions, to make it even more accessible. And they are a big help with high latency, because they react swiftly. Mirri is getting the first one jumping on me off me right away by pushing him 8m away from me. Often before I even can react to it. This is all pointing to the fact, that they might still think, it needs to be less difficult, not more.

They've made new bosses and public dungeons a little harder but also introduced companions. I think they want to increase the difficulty slightly for those who want it, without increasing the difficulty for those who don't as they'll have "someone" to help them with it 24/7.

and that is good that way - public dungeons are supposed to be harder than normal overland content. Same with world bosses, I got my rear side handed back to me when I tried to fight one on my own (didn't know, that they are designed for a group and not for solo play). My attempt with a ritual side outside prime time was of the same kind - still, some of my characters are reckless and are trying something like this - and I let them. When they feel overconfident, they might just do it (I play my characters from their perspective, even I know they won't get far with it).

Btw I'm not opposed to a slight increase - like 10 or 20% - but some here said 3 times as hard - that is an absolute no go to me.

SilverBride

A lot of people played their own alliance's overland but we don't know if they were happy with it. They may have found it more desirable than Silver and Gold, and yes they played it because that is all there was and it had to be completed to move on, but that doesn't mean they were happy with it.

KoIIegoIas

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Tannus15 wrote: »

Just add a mythic that gives you a whole bunch of combat nerfs in exchange for a whole bunch of loot / xp benefits.

Tannus's crown of overland difficulty. double gold drops, double xp, double crafting mats, increased chance of item from treasure chests, all your stats are halved.

Half isn't strong enough.

thats true lol.

KoIIegoIas

Lysette wrote: »

.

KoIIegoIas wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

KoIIegoIas wrote: »

I just asked to get own alliance overland back to what is was before One Tamriel. I never want to get Cadwells Silver + Gold back, wich all difficulty negativity was about.

I think it would be a big mistake to increase the difficulty for everyone, especially when many are happy with overland just as it is now. There is just too much potential for losing a lot of players, so why risk it?

Before one tamriel the ton of people were happy with own alliance overland. Compared to cadwells silver + gold, a ton played it.
How do you know that many people are happy with it. The data doesn't tell us anything specific about a lot of people being happy with the current state. It shows how many people played and completed stuff.
Ofc there are people happy with, but nobody can tell how many, because most People from today know nothing else or have no other chance rather than excepting the current experience of the questline without any difficulty. But that doest mean they are happy. For a lot of people its important that they just can get all their archievements done and let that boring and to easy content of that zone behind them and be disappointed by for example a bad guy gets build up as the biggest evil of whatever, but dies in under a minute.

I dont think that there is big Potential to lose people with old difficulty of pre one tamriel own alliance overland because there never were any large scale complains about or any adressing from ZOS. It was about cadwells silver + gold.
And because that reason and why i know myself how the own alliance enjoyable difficulty was, i am absolutely convinced that the potential for people leaving the game isnt high at all.

For me it just looks like ZOS doesnt find it nessecary, because people still can grind their chars up, get their archievements done and if they are done they can go away from boring questing experience to endgame, while the data is fed up with players completed stuff, while its also good to pretend everyine is happy. Win, win for Zos. And same lame process again with next zone dlc. Doesnt matter its not fun at all for one half, while its okay for the other half.

oh man, you really think that endgame is the goal of many?- Exploration and having fun in overland and questing and doing stuff like gathering materials, crafting stuff and decorate their houses is more like what most do. Endgame is not a concept of role playing games and TES is based on a role play series. Everything before "endgame" is the game for them. A lot like antiquities and I guess that the new card game might as well be something to put time into - it could be fun, if people give it a serious chance.

Of course not. Im aware of it. Tbh, housing is the real endgame in ESO.

Parasaurolophus

SilverBride wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

@KoIIegoIas I'm sorry, but there are players like me here who basically didn't notice any difference in difficulty when moving to silver and gold. All that changed was just the level of the mobs. But not more. I think more that the players just didn't want to deal with the boring experience farming that required more and more experience with each new veteran rank. However, I can assume that I am wrong. But even in this case, the increase in difficulty was negligible.

The increased difficulty of Silver and Gold was very noticable for me. I never died to trash mobs in my own alliance's zones like I did in those. Also, I never farmed experience and I still don't. I just worked my way through all the zones and leveled by completing every quest and map objective, which I didn't find boring then and still don't today.

I don't know why our perceptions are so different but my friend had the same experience I did and noped out and went back to WoW. After I saw how Craglorn was I did the same.

Are you sure that you met the required level for each veteran zone and for each section of the zone?

LalMirchi

I would like to voice my personal opinion that the game is fine as it is.

An optional difficulty slider could be useful if implemented well.

ZOS_GregoryV

Greetings all,

After removing and editing a handful of posts, we would like to remind everyone that Flaming is a violation of the Community Rules, and is stated as follows:

• Flaming: It’s okay to disagree and debate on the official ESO forums, but we do ask that you keep all disagreements civil, constructive, and on-topic. If a discussion gets heated and turns into a debate, remember that you should stick to debating the post and/or thread topic. It is never appropriate to resort to personal comments or jabs about those participating in the thread discussion.

If there may be any questions in regards to the rules, please take a few moments to review them here.

Thank you for your understanding,
-Greg-

SilverBride

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

@KoIIegoIas I'm sorry, but there are players like me here who basically didn't notice any difference in difficulty when moving to silver and gold. All that changed was just the level of the mobs. But not more. I think more that the players just didn't want to deal with the boring experience farming that required more and more experience with each new veteran rank. However, I can assume that I am wrong. But even in this case, the increase in difficulty was negligible.

The increased difficulty of Silver and Gold was very noticable for me. I never died to trash mobs in my own alliance's zones like I did in those. Also, I never farmed experience and I still don't. I just worked my way through all the zones and leveled by completing every quest and map objective, which I didn't find boring then and still don't today.

I don't know why our perceptions are so different but my friend had the same experience I did and noped out and went back to WoW. After I saw how Craglorn was I did the same.

Are you sure that you met the required level for each veteran zone and for each section of the zone?

Yes. I went where they sent me and didn't veer off in other directions. And I didn't do just the story quests. I did every quest I ran across, and every dolmen and every delve, until the entire zone map showed complete, so I was gaining levels.

We probably just have different ideas about how much difficulty is too much. For me, dying frequently to trash mobs and being stuck literally for days on main story bosses was way too much.

Lysette

Well. I had a massive problem with it - because it was inconsistent - like wolves where not wolves in every place, they were puppies in some zones and monsters in others. A wolf is a wolf, and it should feel and be the same in every zone. One Tamriel solved this problem - there are different types of wolves of course, but individuals of a species are the same.

KoIIegoIas

Lysette wrote: »

Well. I had a massive problem with it - because it was inconsistent - like wolves where not wolves in every place, they were puppies in some zones and monsters in others. A wolf is a wolf, and it should feel and be the same in every zone. One Tamriel solved this problem - there are different types of wolves of course, but individuals of a species are the same.

What still have nothing to do with difficulty deficit. Every other aspect of One Tamriel is very good. They got rid of different levels, wich still doenst change the fact that it is to easy and that why every mob now adays on overland is a puppy. Wolf and trolls, except world bosses.

Lysette

KoIIegoIas wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Well. I had a massive problem with it - because it was inconsistent - like wolves where not wolves in every place, they were puppies in some zones and monsters in others. A wolf is a wolf, and it should feel and be the same in every zone. One Tamriel solved this problem - there are different types of wolves of course, but individuals of a species are the same.

What still have nothing to do with difficulty deficit. Every other aspect of One Tamriel is very good. They got rid of different levels, wich still doenst change the fact that it is to easy and that why every mob now adays on overland is a puppy. Wolf and trolls, except world bosses.

I give you that about trolls - they are not what their classification suggests - supposed to be "dangerous" (they count as such in endeavors), but they just aren't. They are not on par with Haj Mota and other creatures with that classification. Well, in a way all these creatures with the "dangerous animal" classification would need a buff up. The area were those are is marked on the map with a skull, so these should feel dangerous, but they just aren't - so maybe we need an adjustment of certain creature types, but not overall a raise in difficulty.