Overland Content Feedback Thread

AlexanderDeLarge

Well public discourse is the only metric we have and I'm not interested in debating data that ZOS has chosen not to share. The only thing I have to go on personally is a false equivalence about the feature addition we're requesting in late 2022 and two supposedly comparable features from 2014 using flimsy logic at best. Said it before and I'll say it again. Ancient history, not relevant in the discussion of the current version of the game and it's absurd to pretend otherwise for a myriad of reasons I've listed above.

Using the logic that anyone who discusses anything online is a minority because most people just don't care enough to, why even have these forums and this 'feedback thread' specifically? If we're all just going to discard everything said in public discourse as irrelevant or heavily weighted against us at best because we're a statistical minority, I'd rather the pretense of my opinion mattering at all go away so I don't waste my time.

I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that the 'veteran audience' deserves a bone once in a while and we arguably haven't in a major way since Craglorn (May 2014) and I also think I speak for a lot of people when I say I feel personally slighted that I've spent hours in this thread and the only thing we've gotten from the team after nearly 4000 posts is a single acknowledgement telling us 'we hear you' almost a year ago.

SilverBride

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

That is one player's opinion, not fact.

The public vote held by Minotaur, a content creator that exclusively makes videos about TESO with 114,000 subscribers had >=2,000 votes. That by definition is not "one player's opinion". It's 1,660 opinions at the very least.
83% said they'd like a veteran overland or hard mode toggle (1,660 votes).
17% said they wouldn't (340 votes).

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I said that difficulty scaling is overwhelmingly popular within and outside these forums. You see it everywhere on social media including here to such a degree that we have a pinned thread about it because the topic came up so much. Like I said earlier it's funny how ZOS is willing to acknowledge power creep as a problem but when it comes to the topic of a veteran overland feature or something similar, it's totally fine as-is.

It's disingenuous to suggest that this debate doesn't sway towards supporting some sort of difficulty scaling in overland when I could probably count the people against it in this very thread on two hands. Maybe three.

I take data from streamers and Reddit with a grain of salt. The developers have access to actual data and they know what their players want and what has been successful. That is the only data I trust.

And to clarify, this thread was pinned to keep the discussion in one place because the weekly threads on the subject were creating a negative experience for many forum users.

tonyblack

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

Well, by looking through pts forums for update 36 i saw the smallest amount of hype compared to any previous updates i witnessed before. The only few active discussions are about class balancing, which remained untouched barring wardens. Same for other forums, streamers and in game conversations: 0 anticipation of anything new or exciting.

Maybe i’m wrong in my assumption, but imho zone dlc alone in their current state aren’t that popular as some want to believe. There are some mystics to grind but other than that my expectations are pretty low: short and easy questline, aimed at brand new players and repeatable dailies for same 2 delves and bosses. No longevity or progression and very few reasons to ever revisit or replay it on different characters once everything completed on the main. Just something you do over the weekend and forever forget. The only positive is that this one at least free. I wish I could be more enthusiastic when new dlc drops.

I'm extremely frustrated because I love the druid archetype and Firesong is straight up my alley but it's not even worth playing through in the current implementation of overland. I'll login and see if there's any mounts finally worth spending my leftover crowns on but that's probably it.

The amount of live events, chapters and DLCs I've missed out on playing during their respective cycles is really starting to add up. The sooner ZOS leadership changes their tune and decides to give the people what they want, the sooner we can catch up and start buying and playing the new stuff.

Yes, completely agree. It’s even more weird that the description of the zone in promotional materials features hints that it’s supposed to be dangerous (i.e. not when you can ista kill 99% of them with no retaliation), yet in reality it’s absolutely trivial area, where combat encounters a mere afterthought.

While Galen’s untamed wilderness is perilous, it is also an island mired in savage conflict from both within and without.
“There are several forces playing out from the shadows of the island when the player arrives,” explains Jason Barnes, Firesong’s Zone Lead. “The Dreadsail Sea Elves are sieging the shorelines on all fronts, whilst the Firesong druids attempt to force the other druid tribes to reunite as one clan against their will.”

The only source of danger there is wondering bosses, which, ironically, designed around exactly same idea the old Craglorn was: forced grouping. Yes, it’s very satisfying to spend 10 minutes to solo a >10mil hp sponge to get rewarded with 100 gold, trash pots and useless overland set piece, when most people get same drops for zerging it down in 20 seconds. I’m not saying it isn’t fun initially but that’s exactly the same approach, which caused old challenging content fail as Rich stated. The fact, that this is the only form of challenge they feel appropriate in zone dlc is really sad.

Still, imho, it’s not as underwhelming as deadlands, as design of the area screams as dangerous and difficult zone suitable only for hardened adventurers. Supposedly, there should be stored the greatest secrets and treasures of one of the most powerful daedric princes which guarded by his best forces but alas, it’s just as dangerous as the starter base game zones. The whole dlc seems like such a wasted potential with nothing else other than absolutely anticlimactic story, which could be breezed through by level 1 character with trash gear. Solo arena, dungeon or trial would fit so perfectly there to at least give some idea how hazardous the actual deadlands supposed to be. For Firesong, at least, my expectations were low to begin with.

AlexanderDeLarge

SilverBride wrote: »

I take data from streamers and Reddit with a grain of salt. The developers have access to actual data and they know what their players want and what has been successful. That is the only data I trust.

And to clarify, this thread was pinned to keep the discussion in one place because the weekly threads on the subject were creating a negative experience for many forum users.

Well speaking as someone who has been ripping into the absurd false equivalence of Cadwell Silver/Gold and the request for difficulty scaling for over a year now, I'm not as comfortable giving the developers carte blanche as you are. That's the only argument I've heard in opposition to mine. I'm not satisfied with that argument and from what I've seen online here and elsewhere, I'm not the only one.

I just wanted you to acknowledge that you were downplaying well over a thousand people by stating that it was 'just one opinion'.

tonyblack

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

It's not about bringing in new players. It's about doing the absolute least to keep the ones they already have and are increasingly feeling like they got burned as a result of the power creep that they're responsible for. In every other aspect of the game ZOS gladly admits that power creep is a problem but when it comes to the overland experience it's totally fine? Can't have it both ways.

The fact that you're bringing up time and cost investments as justification to ignore this kind of feature during the year they introduced a card game as their big feature is... Yeah, no further comment.

This is also spot on. Why latest trials and dungeons top each other in terms of difficulty to account for all power creep introduced through updates, yet anything solo related stays exactly the same if not easier (thanks to the companions and op mystics). Providing different options to experience it is way overdue just because of how game changed over the years.

SilverBride

tonyblack wrote: »

Why latest trials and dungeons top each other in terms of difficulty to account for all power creep introduced through updates, yet anything solo related stays exactly the same if not easier (thanks to the companions and op mystics). Providing different options to experience it is way overdue just because of how game changed over the years.

It makes perfect sense that challenging content such as dungeons and trials would become more difficult as players progress. It doesn't make sense that solo content would, especially when we consider that this solo content is for all players of all skill levels and experience.

AlexanderDeLarge

SilverBride wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

Why latest trials and dungeons top each other in terms of difficulty to account for all power creep introduced through updates, yet anything solo related stays exactly the same if not easier (thanks to the companions and op mystics). Providing different options to experience it is way overdue just because of how game changed over the years.

It makes perfect sense that challenging content such as dungeons and trials would become more difficult as players progress. It doesn't make sense that solo content would, especially when we consider that this solo content is for all players of all skill levels and experience.

Again, veteran phasing/difficulty scaling would be opt-in. Also overland is not even solo content anymore disregarding the multiplayer aspect of MMOs as a whole. It's opt-in solo 24/7/365 because you have NPC companions. You haven't been able to make that argument since Blackwood.

Don't like veteran difficulty scaling? Don't use it just like you presumably avoid veteran dungeons/arenas/trials already and have been for the past 8 and a half years. I'm not being snippy with you, I'm asking a logical question. Why can't you simply avoid the veteran toggle in overland like you've done with literally every other aspect of the PvE experience in The Elder Scrolls Online?

Also I take great issue with what you just said. Power creep doesn't make sense. One of the biggest benefits of the character level and gear cap never increasing is supposed to be a consistent power level to design content around in a game featuring horizontal progression rather than vertical in a game like World of Warcraft where the level cap and gear cap increases every expansion. Even ZOS acknowledges power creep is a unintended side effect of the champion point system to an unacceptable degree and they've made great strides to minimize the effects of it.

tonyblack

SilverBride wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

Why latest trials and dungeons top each other in terms of difficulty to account for all power creep introduced through updates, yet anything solo related stays exactly the same if not easier (thanks to the companions and op mystics). Providing different options to experience it is way overdue just because of how game changed over the years.

It makes perfect sense that challenging content such as dungeons and trials would become more difficult as players progress. It doesn't make sense that solo content would, especially when we consider that this solo content is for all players of all skill levels and experience.

Ok, I’m curious, what makes solo content unique in that regard, so it should not offer any form of progression unlike dungeons and trials? How that makes perfect sense? Normal group content is also for all players of all skill levels and experience, but there is also veteran option for those who prefer it.

Araxyte

SilverBride wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Not agreeing with something we don't see a need for or a benefit to does not mean we don't support our fellow players.

Actually, it does. You are forcing us to play easy mode. An option would get rid of that force. And more options, is always better.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. If a player doesn't enjoy overland as it is they can choose not to participate in it the same way I choose not to participate in veteran dungeons, trials and arenas or PvP.

Players have varied tastes in what they enjoy so there needs to be varied activities to fit the different playstyles. ESO has this, but it can't be expected to completely customize every aspect of the game to fit a few player's desires.

We literally have an option for dungeons and trials, an easy and hard mode. So this argument is invalid. You are pretty much agreeing with us - players have varied tastes. Some players enjoy a relaxed play through dungeons to fully enjoy surroundings and the quest, whilst some players enjoy the combat more. I'm pretty sure 99% of people wouldn't mind a story mode for dungeons and trials which makes them even easier than normal mode, so why would you be so against an option for players to have a more difficult overland?

As for PvP, this is a different subject and doesn't relate to any of this.

Araxyte

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

That is one player's opinion, not fact.

It's actually an opinion shared by many other people......

It's an opinion shared by some, but not by all. Many are fine with overland just as it is. But in the end it's all just our opinions, and opinions aren't facts.

Opinions are everything. Too many bad opinions and you have a game in decline wink wink. Opinions, believe it or not, affect numbers.

Araxyte

SilverBride wrote: »

And to clarify, this thread was pinned to keep the discussion in one place because the weekly threads on the subject were creating a negative experience for many forum users.

Exactly. So many people wanted a change to overland that the forums were overwhelmed by the subject.

Araxyte

https://youtu.be/iJPMT26raNc?t=409

Another video that sums up overland nicely. I struggle to keep nearly all of my friends playing. They quit before reaching 100 hours due to how boring overland and quest content is, and the steep jump to veteran dungeons. This is purely down to how ridiculously easy quests and mobs are.

Jammy420

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

The sooner ZOS leadership changes their tune and decides to give the people what they want, the sooner we can catch up and start buying and playing the new stuff.

ESO had veteran overland zones at launch and players weren't playing them. This was one of the reasons for One Tamriel. Players didn't want difficulty in questing then and many still don't today.

If a player is losing interest it is most likely because this isn't the right game for their playstyle or burnout... or both.

Maybe what they need to do is drop the ceiling some more.

It was unpopular because it was forced. Just like the ez mode is forced now, and is unpopular. Funny how people are for change when it suits their bias, but not vice versa.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

More people would leave if they couldn't find groups than those that dislike overland enough to quit. If that wasn't the case, it would have been done already.

I don't know why they don't just add a difficulty slider that adds debuffs to your character and opens them up to exclusive attacks ala LOTR, because that keeps things from being split and gives us more options, and is probably cheaper than redoing all the maps for a vet version. But, I don't think they care at this point. They are one of the most profitable games on the market and they've already stated that the vast majority of the playerbase is engaged with the story in overland. So they just don't care about how vets feel, unfortunately.

We already have numerous full instances per zone. Splitting that up in 2 is not the end all catastrophe you are making it out to be.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

The developers themselves got a ton of feedback about the game being too difficult back then, and explicitly stated as much. It wasn't pretty far down the list, it was a primary driving force behind their changes.

It doesnt have to be impossible or laughably easy. There can be an in between ;.;

spartaxoxo wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

That is one player's opinion, not fact.

The public vote held by Minotaur, a content creator that exclusively makes videos about TESO had >=2,000 votes. That by definition is not "one player's opinion". It's 1,660 opinions at the very least. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I said that difficulty scaling is overwhelmingly popular within and outside these forums.
83% said they'd like a veteran overland or hard mode toggle (1,660 votes).
17% said they wouldn't (340 votes).

It's disingenuous to suggest that this debate doesn't sway towards supporting some sort of difficulty scaling in overland when I could probably count the people against it in this very thread on two hands. Maybe three.

A sample biased poll doesn't really tell us much of anything. I fall into that 83% myself, but the people voting on a content creator's poll is already going to skew less casual from jump. Same with anyone engaging in social media.

I am sorry, but that is too large of a number to just cast aside like that. It is very representative.

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

That is one player's opinion, not fact.

The public vote held by Minotaur, a content creator that exclusively makes videos about TESO with 114,000 subscribers had >=2,000 votes. That by definition is not "one player's opinion". It's 1,660 opinions at the very least.
83% said they'd like a veteran overland or hard mode toggle (1,660 votes).
17% said they wouldn't (340 votes).

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I said that difficulty scaling is overwhelmingly popular within and outside these forums. You see it everywhere on social media including here to such a degree that we have a pinned thread about it because the topic came up so much. Like I said earlier it's funny how ZOS is willing to acknowledge power creep as a problem but when it comes to the topic of a veteran overland feature or something similar, it's totally fine as-is.

It's disingenuous to suggest that this debate doesn't sway towards supporting some sort of difficulty scaling in overland when I could probably count the people against it in this very thread on two hands. Maybe three.

I take data from streamers and Reddit with a grain of salt. The developers have access to actual data and they know what their players want and what has been successful. That is the only data I trust.

And to clarify, this thread was pinned to keep the discussion in one place because the weekly threads on the subject were creating a negative experience for many forum users.

The devs have demonstrated time and time again they have an extreme disconnect with the reality of the game. Take performance and balance as an example. If they really listened to data they would not have gotten rid of the class reps. Nor would they have ignored the plethora of pts data we gave them.

SilverBride wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

Why latest trials and dungeons top each other in terms of difficulty to account for all power creep introduced through updates, yet anything solo related stays exactly the same if not easier (thanks to the companions and op mystics). Providing different options to experience it is way overdue just because of how game changed over the years.

It makes perfect sense that challenging content such as dungeons and trials would become more difficult as players progress. It doesn't make sense that solo content would, especially when we consider that this solo content is for all players of all skill levels and experience.

Why are people so against players having to actually learn the game, why does it have to be so easy that it is impossible to even learn the game mechanics through overland?

SilverBride

Jammy420 wrote: »

Why are people so against players having to actually learn the game, why does it have to be so easy that it is impossible to even learn the game mechanics through overland?

Overland does not train players for veteran content, nor should it. Overland tells the story. The only way to learn veteran content is by doing veteran content.

I've played a lot of MMOs and I've done a lot of end game. When a new dungeon or raid was introduced we went in and we wiped a lot and we learned its mechanics. No one expected questing zones to teach them that.

I also never saw a single complaint that the questing zones were too easy and should have veteran levels for powerful players. These players found their challenges in the content that was developed for that.

I don't know why this is a problem for some ESO players, but I've only seen this type of complaint in this game.

But the bottom line is that this game is casual and solo friendly, with things like the Oakensoul ring and Companions, because this is what a lot of players want. And Rich Lambert made a statement that there are no major changes planned for overland difficulty.

This is all I have to say and I'm done with this discussion. I wish everyone well in finding something they can enjoy.

WiseSky

Malthorne wrote: »

If the majority of players love overland as it is, then why is it that I rarely see other players questing? Outside of world bosses and dolmens in select zones or during events the overland is dead. Even in high isle.

Actually, I am currently working on an Addon for Quests, which needs me to be redoing the quests.

I am extremely surprised with the number of players questing at all the quests.
In obscure caves just for quests or random houses talking to Npcs.

ESO has 2400 quests all spread over Tamriel, no matter the quest I am working on I see lots of players passing through.

spartaxoxo

Jammy420 wrote: »

We already have numerous full instances per zone. Splitting that up in 2 is not the end all catastrophe you are making it out to be.

They have explicitly cited separating players being detrimental as a reason for it not happening. A full instance can obviously be separated, but not all zones are full. They have not stated why, but it's not exactly hard to figure out the issue comes in for zones that aren't already separated. And why a business would be hesitant to pickup money is also self evident. If they thought it would make them more money than it would cost, they wouldn't be citing their success as a business as to why they aren't doing it.

They already stated a solution that splits the population isn't going to happen, so I think it makes more sense to push for a solution that doesn't. That's one reason of many I'd prefer a slider to new, separate instances.

It doesnt have to be impossible or laughably easy. There can be an in between ;.;

Strawman argument. I never said it had to be. In fact, I was talking about a difficulty level that was significantly easier than much of the difficult content we have now.

I am sorry, but that is too large of a number to just cast aside like that. It is very representative.

False. A biased sample can easily skew results regardless of how many people participated. In order to be representative it would need to be a random sample of the playerbase. This is why developers rely on playdata rather than polls on their websites. If they do decide to use a poll, they don't rely on polls created by content creators or on their websites because the sample is not random. And instead they cast out emails to a random sample of all the people that allow them to email them and hope that they get enough back.

If you ask 1000 PC users whether or not PS4 should end immediately, you're going to get a very different answer than if you ask only PS4 users. And neither poll could claim to be a representative sample of the playerbase. If you ask 1000 Democrats whether a piece of legislation that is a popular among liberals should be passed, you'd get a very different result than if you ask 1000 Republicans. And neither would be a representative sample of the voting public.

What any content creator's poll shows is what viewers of their content think, they are not representative of the general playerbase.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

Why are people so against players having to actually learn the game, why does it have to be so easy that it is impossible to even learn the game mechanics through overland?

Overland does not train players for veteran content, nor should it. Overland tells the story. The only way to learn veteran content is by doing veteran content.

I've played a lot of MMOs and I've done a lot of end game. When a new dungeon or raid was introduced we went in and we wiped a lot and we learned its mechanics. No one expected questing zones to teach them that.

I also never saw a single complaint that the questing zones were too easy and should have veteran levels for powerful players. These players found their challenges in the content that was developed for that.

I don't know why this is a problem for some ESO players, but I've only seen this type of complaint in this game.

But the bottom line is that this game is casual and solo friendly, with things like the Oakensoul ring and Companions, because this is what a lot of players want. And Rich Lambert made a statement that there are no major changes planned for overland difficulty.

This is all I have to say and I'm done with this discussion. I wish everyone well in finding something they can enjoy.

Then where? You constantly say it's exclusively for the story, but if that's the case, why have combat encounters at all? Video games generally have a difficulty curve, like in mario the first few levels focus solely on jumping with static hazards, then later levels will introduce one new thing like moving hazards and platforms, or keys and what not. Then a boss level will take all the things you learned while progressing through the content to show how all the pieces have come together.

ESO overland doesn't do any of that since a majority of the things taught in the tutorial are never seen again until you go to vet content. Bashing enemies? Nope. Enemies having impactful enough attacks to warrant even paying attention to who or what you're fighting? Using heals or shields? Not needed when powerful overland mobs can take literal minutes to kill someone who isn't fighting back.

ESO's overland is where new players get their first impression of the game. Some, as others have stated, are put off by how simplistic the gameplay lets on, so they bore before getting to see the best the game has to offer. Others want to expand to other pieces of content but without practicing simple gameplay systems, ones that players should know before going into vet content, they see the content as too hard and the people trying to help them as toxic elitist demanding them to play the game differently.

These points have been raised countless times in this thread, about how only allowing overland to be this single base level, below the difficulty of the tutorial even, can cause harm, but then for players like me who have done vet content and expect to be able to engage with the world and story of ESO through the engaging gameplay that it has are let down as even world ending threads are nothing but jokes and a waste of time.

I enjoy ESO, I have spent thousands of hours doing so, the game already has the tech in place to provide this sort of option at no cost to you, so I don't get how this is something that needs to be fought over.

martinhpb16_ESO

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

That is one player's opinion, not fact.

It's actually an opinion shared by many other people......

It's an opinion shared by some, but not by all. Many are fine with overland just as it is. But in the end it's all just our opinions, and opinions aren't facts.

It is a fact that I find overland too easy, not an opinion.
It is a fact that because I find overland too easy, I do not have fun.
It is a fact that I do not play much overland as a consequence of me finding it too easy
It is a fact that I do not buy updates because I find overland too easy and do not have fun.
It is a fact that this content creator asked for feedback and thousands of people commented that they wanted more difficult overland as a CHOICE which amounted to over 80% of the comments received.
It is a fact that some people do not support fellow players who would like a choice.

AlexanderDeLarge

Strange how almost every TESO content creator I've come across on YouTube express a similar sentiment to 'overland is too easy' yet I'm told that we're all part of some weird fringe group that doesn't actually represent the playerbase in any meaningful capacity. Even if that were true, annoying your content creators to the point where they're expressing their dissatisfaction to hundreds of thousands of viewers and garnering a reputation on social media for not listening to your playerbase probably isn't a winning strategy long-term.

To write off anyone who discusses the game positively or negatively online on the basis that anyone who would care enough to spend their time discussing a video game on the internet is a minority is to write off their most vocal and arguably valuable fans because we're the evangelists getting our friends to play the game. Yet here I am feeling neglected for the better part of a decade because ZOS has decided that endlessly chasing new users (less than 20% of which even hit level 50) is more important than maintaining the ones they already have. Something as simple as a debuff memento or difficulty slider would give their veteran players reason to continue buying their DLCs and chapters which adds up to a lot more than what the average GamePass player will spend.

spartaxoxo

There's a pretty clear progression of

Overland > normal base game dungeons> vet base game dungeons/normal dlc > vet dlc dungeons in terms of learning how to do dungeons. Overland isn't supposed to prepare people for vet dungeons. And if they do make a separate instances, I would hope they make it for the people who actually need more content, the people doing vet dlc dungeons/trials/arenas. That's like one of the only upsides I personally would like about a separate instances.

CP5

It prepares people for nothing because it expects nothing. People spamming an aoe skill like volley because they never needed to pay attention to how their skills work. Players not knowing how to interrupt enemies because, despite being forced to do it in the tutorial, no enemy in the world reinforces this interaction, so it's forgotten. The vast majority of overland content is little more than trash mobs throwing out softball attacks with the occasional time-wasting skill that looks fancy, and that's why even in normal Direfrost Keep, it is normally best to leave the pug dead than to try to explain to them how to break free.

spartaxoxo

Introduced but not necessary in Overland, reinforced but not hard required in normal dungeons, don't do it and you'll fail in vet dungeons. That's called progression.

Overland's job is to prepare you to do normal dungeons. It is normal dungeons that could do a better job of teaching people vet dungeons, and they have gotten better at that.

ETA: If people want to learn to break free, they can go play vet Direfrost keep. If they choose to make a separate instance, they should go all out and make it like VVH/VMA.

Jammy420

SilverBride wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

Why latest trials and dungeons top each other in terms of difficulty to account for all power creep introduced through updates, yet anything solo related stays exactly the same if not easier (thanks to the companions and op mystics). Providing different options to experience it is way overdue just because of how game changed over the years.

It makes perfect sense that challenging content such as dungeons and trials would become more difficult as players progress. It doesn't make sense that solo content would, especially when we consider that this solo content is for all players of all skill levels and experience.

Why are people so against players having to actually learn the game, why does it have to be so easy that it is impossible to even learn the game mechanics through overland?

SilverBride wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

Why are people so against players having to actually learn the game, why does it have to be so easy that it is impossible to even learn the game mechanics through overland?

Overland does not train players for veteran content, nor should it. Overland tells the story. The only way to learn veteran content is by doing veteran content.

I've played a lot of MMOs and I've done a lot of end game. When a new dungeon or raid was introduced we went in and we wiped a lot and we learned its mechanics. No one expected questing zones to teach them that.

I also never saw a single complaint that the questing zones were too easy and should have veteran levels for powerful players. These players found their challenges in the content that was developed for that.

I don't know why this is a problem for some ESO players, but I've only seen this type of complaint in this game.

But the bottom line is that this game is casual and solo friendly, with things like the Oakensoul ring and Companions, because this is what a lot of players want. And Rich Lambert made a statement that there are no major changes planned for overland difficulty.

This is all I have to say and I'm done with this discussion. I wish everyone well in finding something they can enjoy.

I lurked these forums since launch, after one tamriel the voices of it being too easy were loud, were many, and were the majority. Slowly over time that changed because people were ignored. If you never saw people complain either oyu just didnt want to see it, or you havent been here long enough.

As for it not training you for vet, I was in no way suggesting it should. It should however at least introduce you to basic mechanics and THROUGH boss battles and the like enforce those mechanics by emcouraging you to use the actual in game mechanics.

Having to learn a game to play it effectively is not some bad concept, it should be the base requirement for any game.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

We already have numerous full instances per zone. Splitting that up in 2 is not the end all catastrophe you are making it out to be.

They have explicitly cited separating players being detrimental as a reason for it not happening. A full instance can obviously be separated, but not all zones are full. They have not stated why, but it's not exactly hard to figure out the issue comes in for zones that aren't already separated. And why a business would be hesitant to pickup money is also self evident. If they thought it would make them more money than it would cost, they wouldn't be citing their success as a business as to why they aren't doing it.

They already stated a solution that splits the population isn't going to happen, so I think it makes more sense to push for a solution that doesn't. That's one reason of many I'd prefer a slider to new, separate instances.

It doesnt have to be impossible or laughably easy. There can be an in between ;.;

Strawman argument. I never said it had to be. In fact, I was talking about a difficulty level that was significantly easier than much of the difficult content we have now.

I am sorry, but that is too large of a number to just cast aside like that. It is very representative.

False. A biased sample can easily skew results regardless of how many people participated. In order to be representative it would need to be a random sample of the playerbase. This is why developers rely on playdata rather than polls on their websites. If they do decide to use a poll, they don't rely on polls created by content creators or on their websites because the sample is not random. And instead they cast out emails to a random sample of all the people that allow them to email them and hope that they get enough back.

If you ask 1000 PC users whether or not PS4 should end immediately, you're going to get a very different answer than if you ask only PS4 users. And neither poll could claim to be a representative sample of the playerbase. If you ask 1000 Democrats whether a piece of legislation that is a popular among liberals should be passed, you'd get a very different result than if you ask 1000 Republicans. And neither would be a representative sample of the voting public.

What any content creator's poll shows is what viewers of their content think, they are not representative of the general playerbase.

Your comparison would be true if we were asking only overland players and excluding pvpers. The poll was in fact open for everyone to see, across multiple platforms, forums, and sub forums. It is representitive, if you do not want to believe it, well, I will not argue further.

As for the strawman argument, it is not. From all your posts it is clear you are running from a position of " it cant be impossible, no no no ", and something as a compromise, I know a foreign concept nowadays, is just out of the question.

The devs can say what they want about splitting population, but the reason the population has gone down, is because of decisions like that. They simply refuse to listen to any meaningful input with the overland. They listened when everyone said it was too hard at first, and recieved that as " it must be so easy you can do it naked " instead of slightly tuning it down like everyone wanted.

Jammy420

CP5 wrote: »

It prepares people for nothing because it expects nothing. People spamming an aoe skill like volley because they never needed to pay attention to how their skills work. Players not knowing how to interrupt enemies because, despite being forced to do it in the tutorial, no enemy in the world reinforces this interaction, so it's forgotten. The vast majority of overland content is little more than trash mobs throwing out softball attacks with the occasional time-wasting skill that looks fancy, and that's why even in normal Direfrost Keep, it is normally best to leave the pug dead than to try to explain to them how to break free.

It honestly seems like people have an aversion to learning the game mechanics. Like, when did games suddenly reward people for not caring about the mechanics the devs actually put into the game?

martinhpb16_ESO

Nefas talks here about the problems of easy overland and the transition to social vet content.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtjuxrYjGFQ

CP5

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Introduced but not necessary in Overland, reinforced but not hard required in normal dungeons, don't do it and you'll fail in vet dungeons. That's called progression.

Overland's job is to prepare you to do normal dungeons. It is normal dungeons that could do a better job of teaching people vet dungeons, and they have gotten better at that.

ETA: If people want to learn to break free, they can go play vet Direfrost keep. If they choose to make a separate instance, they should go all out and make it like VVH/VMA.

They don't 'learn' to do something by going somewhere that requires it. All they do is get grabbed, have no clue what their answers are to it, and die. They may be told what to do by others, or they may be left dead and never learn. Having a single overland mob that did something like the sorcerer's rune cage, or a long duration fear, or any other sort of lock down stun, that doesn't result in a final boss healing to full would be progression, from an interaction where the ability is used to make the fight easier to one were doing it is required.

Progression requires them seeing something, doing something in response and seeing its effect, then developing that knowledge into something greater. Like, if overland menders healed for an amount making interrupting them worthwhile, and a player finds that, while they can clear the encounter without interrupting them, but interrupting them makes the fight go by much easier, that is learning. Then in a dungeon when a fight critical interrupt shows up and this player knows from their own time playing before that 'red lines shooting out of that npcs face' = 'interrupt', then they'll do that, having a foreknowledge of the fight by knowing the system. Expecting someone whose never interrupted in a fight before to just know that in group content is, problematic, to say the least.

spartaxoxo

Jammy420 wrote: »

Your comparison would be true if we were asking only overland players and excluding pvpers. The poll was in fact open for everyone to see, across multiple platforms, forums, and sub forums. It is representitive, if you do not want to believe it, well, I will not argue further.

It doesn't matter if it was open for everyone to see. The content creator's poll is going to be heavily skewed towards people who are watching the content creator's stuff and that creates a sample bias. The sample bias of content creators is why their polls are generally not used for balance, and used at a company's own peril. It is NOT a representative sample because it is going to be inherently skewed towards people who like the content creator's works. That poll is only good for telling us what the viewers of that particular content creator thinks and not the playerbase at large. The casual players that make up the bulk of this game and participate the most in overland generally speaking don't look up stuff online which is why they are hard to capture in polls. This is why companies analyze play data instead.

In the presidential election held in the United States in 1936, the candidates were the incumbent President Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat) and Alf Landon (Republican).

The Literary Digest was a popular and widely read weekly magazine that ran a poll to predict the winner of the presidential race, and had done so correctly from 1920 to 1932. In 1936, The Literary Digest mailed a questionnaire to 10 million people to ask about their voting intentions. This extraordinary number of people included readers of The Literary Digest, registered car owners and people listed in the phone book. In one of the largest surveys ever (although not The Literary Digest's largest), 2.4 million voters replied. The response rate — the percentage of people responding of those invited to participate — was 2 400 00010 000 000, or 24%. The Literary Digest claimed 'The country will know to within a fraction of one per cent the actual popular vote of forty million.' The prediction that The Literary Digest made based on their survey was that Franklin Roosevelt would receive only 43% of the vote; Landon was predicted to win in a landslide. As you may know, Roosevelt won — he obtained 62% of the vote of around 40 million voters.
The failure of The Literary Digest's poll was an embarrassment, and The Literary Digest subsequently went out of business; eventually its subscriber list was bought by Time magazine.

Why did The Literary Digest get the result so wrong? One problem was that the sample frame — the set of lists of names from which they recruited voters — was biased. Magazine readers, car club members and telephone subscribers tended to be relatively wealthy, and the wealthy at this time (during the great Depression) tended to be Republican voters. This is an example of a biased sample frame. The large number of people responding to the survey did not guarantee that the result would be accurate.

You might also wonder why The Literary Digest failed in 1936 when its reputation had been built on successful predictions of the results of earlier presidential elections. One reason is that economic conditions in the US were in decline, and in 1936 voting patterns related more strongly to economic circumstances than they had in the past. Biases in the sample frame used mattered less in earlier elections.

Here's an infamous example of the problem with sample bias.

spartaxoxo

Jammy420 wrote: »

As for the strawman argument, it is not. From all your posts it is clear you are running from a position of " it cant be impossible, no no no ", and something as a compromise, I know a foreign concept nowadays, is just out of the question.

Utterly false. I have said that I would use a vet option and that I favor a difficulty slider on many, many, many occasions. You also don't get to claim an argument is not a strawman because you don't like the opinion of the person who made the argument, even if that was true.

The devs nerfed the game because of complaints about difficulty =/= there is no middle ground in difficulty, no matter how much ad hominem tries to make it so.

I won't take lectures about compromise when my opinion has constantly and repeatedly been misrepresented in this thread, because in this thread there can be no acceptance of any other solution for vet difficulty than a separate instance. In this thread, anyone who would support any other solution is against vet overland, and their arguments can be freely and deliberately misrepresented without care.

I don't think a separate instances is a good idea, but if they were to implement it I wouldn't be mad and would use it. I would also hope they took advantage of the opportunity to make something actually oriented towards those of us who can do vet content. I have proposed many alternative solutions to a separate instances that I personally would think would work better to address the concerns raised by Rich and my own concerns. If someone else has a problem with that, I couldn't care less.

[snip]

[Edit for baiting.]

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

Expecting someone whose never interrupted in a fight before to just know that in group content is, problematic, to say the least.

The game literally tells them to break free and tells them the buttons to press as a pop-up the first time they see the attack in a dungeon? At least it does on console.

Kappachi

SilverBride wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

I see more posts on here calling for an OPTION for more difficult overland than I do calling for anything else.

How does using the word "option" change that it is still a separate instance of overland and will cause a separation of players? And how does the word "option" make it take any less resources to develop and implement?

Rich Lambert made a statement that there are no plans for any major changes to overland difficulty.

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

Thanks for supporting your fellow players mate.

Not agreeing with something we don't see a need for or a benefit to does not mean we don't support our fellow players.

It doesn't need to be a separate instance. Many games have figured scaling per person out, someone in normal would still burn bosses as fast as they would in normal while someone in veteran will see an increase challenge, take more damage from boss mechanics, and deal less damage to the bosses, Everyone still plays together but the numbers are tuned depending on the option you choose, that way you can make overland content meaningful again and not just tank & spank everyone while standing in red circles.

Ah, but people worried about Firesong being too easy I would rest easy, DLC overland zones typically have a higher level of difficulty than regular overland zones, I've been killed by a couple quest mobs in DLC quests at the very least and world bosses absolutely require people to play with, it's just the base game is so lackluster in difficulty and that's where you'll spend a lot of time.