Overland Content Feedback Thread

Parasaurolophus

SilverBride wrote: »

Cominfordatoothbrush wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I still believe it would be completely unfair to the playerbase as a whole to have the entire base game altered to fit the wants of one playstyle.

Was the card game unfair to people who never play it? Were companions unfair to people who never use them or can't use them?

Those are new features that were added that players can choose to participate in or not, and they do not alter the base game like veteran overland would. The base game should stay the same for everyone, not customized to one particular playstyle.

Like Veteran Overland being a choice, as I am pretty sure we've all agreed on many times over the 140 pages here.

We haven't all agreed. I find it completely unfair to customize the base game to one particular playstyle.

We already have normal/vet instances for dungeons/trials/arenas, why would it be unfair to have this for overland?

Dungeons, trials and arenas are optional content that are set up specifically to provide additional challenges for those who choose to participate in them. Overland is the base game.

Overland can be ignored in the same way.

spartaxoxo

corrosivechains wrote: »

The whole "it'd split the player base" argument is kind of a strange one tbh. We're already in a system that shards out zone instances depending on how many people currently occupy a zone at any given time, which splits the playerbase.

The numbers of shards are based on the population. There are zones with like 1 shard and a low population, and there are zones with many. Having different difficulty settings prevents this merger for low populations when needed.

And no, not everyone can do stuff like world bosses alone. I saw someone rage quit a zone the other day, as they blew up in zone chat after waiting an hour for someone to come along and help them with a boss they needed. Who knows if that player will ever be back.

The devs concern over split playerbase is obviously over stuff like that, and not for the people who are in a highly populated instance that can easily do everything themselves.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Dungeons, trials and arenas are optional content that are set up specifically to provide additional challenges for those who choose to participate in them. Overland is the base game.

So, are you against challenge banners and the like now?

No, I'm not against them because they don't alter the entire base game.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Dungeons, trials and arenas are optional content that are set up specifically to provide additional challenges for those who choose to participate in them. Overland is the base game.

So, are you against challenge banners and the like now?

No, I'm not against them because they don't alter the entire base game.

If they added them and made the instances story bosses repeatable, that would be an alteration to the base game. It's just one that wouldn't have any impact on others.

ETA

It's totally possible something like that is what they are mainly doing to older stuff.

Cominfordatoothbrush

SilverBride wrote: »

Cominfordatoothbrush wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I still believe it would be completely unfair to the playerbase as a whole to have the entire base game altered to fit the wants of one playstyle.

Was the card game unfair to people who never play it? Were companions unfair to people who never use them or can't use them?

Those are new features that were added that players can choose to participate in or not, and they do not alter the base game like veteran overland would. The base game should stay the same for everyone, not customized to one particular playstyle.

Like Veteran Overland being a choice, as I am pretty sure we've all agreed on many times over the 140 pages here.

We haven't all agreed. I find it completely unfair to customize the base game to one particular playstyle.

We already have normal/vet instances for dungeons/trials/arenas, why would it be unfair to have this for overland?

Dungeons, trials and arenas are optional content that are set up specifically to provide additional challenges for those who choose to participate in them. Overland is the base game.

Then how is letting people choose to enter a vet instance unfair? If you don't want to play vet, then you can safely ignore it and it won't affect you at all - touching the base game even less than challenge banners.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Dungeons, trials and arenas are optional content that are set up specifically to provide additional challenges for those who choose to participate in them. Overland is the base game.

So, are you against challenge banners and the like now?

No, I'm not against them because they don't alter the entire base game.

If they added them and made the instances story bosses repeatable, that would be an alteration to the base game. It's just one that wouldn't have any impact on others.

ETA

It's totally possible something like that is what they are mainly doing to older stuff.

That wouldn't be an alteration of the entire base game and require a completely separate instance of overland. I believe that boss fights are instanced already so creating different difficulty levels would have no effect on anyone else or change how the base game is already set up.

I think that they may be considering doing something like this and maybe making the boss fights repeatable. I also think they may be looking at adding difficulty levels to Delves and Public Dungeons. This would give end game players a reason to return to older zones because they would find a challenge in these, and these zones would then have replayability. And these are also already instanced so would not affect the entire overland base game.

I am not against any of these options. I just don't believe the entire base game with all the quests and all the mobs should be customized into a separate veteran overland, optional or otherwise.

Red_Feather

I have been suggesting for almost 2 years now how ESO could increase difficutly and it's always been ignored or downvoted. I am convinced people just exist to argue and they don't really care all that much about solving an issue.

Malthorne

Red_Feather wrote: »

I have been suggesting for almost 2 years now how ESO could increase difficutly and it's always been ignored or downvoted. I am convinced people just exist to argue and they don't really care all that much about solving an issue.

What’s your idea?

Cireous

I think they kind of have to add 'hide shoulders' now after seeing the intense and amusing demand for it on Reddit.

The_Titan_Tim

IMO as a Tamriel Hero, here are my beliefs of what would revitalize Overland content in ESO.

Difficulty Slider
^Increased quality of rewards based on difficulty

Smarter AI
^Faster more intelligent responses from enemies

Spellcrafting
^A reason to explore old regions after the update

Overland Set Improvements
^These sets are not comparative to other sets

Increase Experience Gain
^Questing should yield more than grinding

In summary, there just isn’t enough to motivate people to go back through content, other games do Overland better at the moment, hopefully this changes in 2023.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I still believe it would be completely unfair to the playerbase as a whole to have the entire base game altered to fit the wants of one playstyle.

Was the card game unfair to people who never play it? Were companions unfair to people who never use them or can't use them?

Those are new features that were added that players can choose to participate in or not, and they do not alter the base game like veteran overland would. The base game should stay the same for everyone, not customized to one particular playstyle.

As was said before I got back, this would be a 'new feature that would be added that players could choose to participate in or not,' what does it matter if that is overland? What does it matter to you if people are enjoying a type of overland different than you? Should solo dungeons never be a thing since, players who are in their own instances enjoying the dungeon as a group would, what, get upset with the knowledge that someone else is enjoying the same content as them but alone? I love dungeons, if they added a solo dungeon, so people could explore them, take in the story, and simply do them at their own pace, I would be happy. People enjoying content I love rather than not is a good thing, and if these players would either be somewhere I would never interact with them or not even in the game, then all the better. Why is this bad when applied to overland?

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I still believe it would be completely unfair to the playerbase as a whole to have the entire base game altered to fit the wants of one playstyle.

Was the card game unfair to people who never play it? Were companions unfair to people who never use them or can't use them?

Those are new features that were added that players can choose to participate in or not, and they do not alter the base game like veteran overland would. The base game should stay the same for everyone, not customized to one particular playstyle.

Like Veteran Overland being a choice, as I am pretty sure we've all agreed on many times over the 140 pages here.

We haven't all agreed. I find it completely unfair to customize the base game to one particular playstyle.

Why should we 'customize dungeons for one playstyle,' to suit those who voice their interest in such a thing? Because otherwise those people would be very likely to never touch the content, and adding options allows them to. That alone would provide large amounts of content for them, and maybe they'd grow comfortable enough in those dungeons that they'd try their hand doing it with random players, and perhaps they'd even like it. But if the option isn't there, they never would.

Just because you apply a special tag to overland, suggesting it should only provide one kind of experience, what if I stonewalled and said "No, dungeons are for combat, and normal dungeons are bad enough as is! They should only be for people who want hard fights, and nothing else" that would be a horrible sentiment to carry as adding options allows more players to interact meaningfully with the content, and with any well populated zone already being sub-divided into instances, what harm is there to you if people with similar interest are put in instances to provide for those interests? And, as I have said before, dead zones with only 1 instance would likely end up with a more populated vet instance as people who have skipped years of content would go back to do them.

SilverBride wrote: »

Cominfordatoothbrush wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I still believe it would be completely unfair to the playerbase as a whole to have the entire base game altered to fit the wants of one playstyle.

Was the card game unfair to people who never play it? Were companions unfair to people who never use them or can't use them?

Those are new features that were added that players can choose to participate in or not, and they do not alter the base game like veteran overland would. The base game should stay the same for everyone, not customized to one particular playstyle.

Like Veteran Overland being a choice, as I am pretty sure we've all agreed on many times over the 140 pages here.

We haven't all agreed. I find it completely unfair to customize the base game to one particular playstyle.

We already have normal/vet instances for dungeons/trials/arenas, why would it be unfair to have this for overland?

Dungeons, trials and arenas are optional content that are set up specifically to provide additional challenges for those who choose to participate in them. Overland is the base game.

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

This thread goes to another circle of the same discussions. I certainly consider vt. overland is a good idea, it's just that there are people who don't listen to arguments.

I listen, I just don't agree with them.

There are base game dungeons, as has been pointed out since this post has been made. But again, do dungeons have no story? No set peaces worth going out to see? If so, then I guess they are there for nothing but combat, so we don't need a solo dungeon option to give people a chance to experience the story at their own pace, since apparently they're specifically there to provide people challenges. But that's not true, and what does 'overland is base game' do to mitigate this? Plenty of zones are dlc by the way, but still. "Overland is for the story" yet the gameplay undermines the story for many people, we go to THE DEADLANDS and outer wall of Wayrest is more dangerous, why even bother going there if all you experience is the same?

What harm is there, in providing players interest in it, with an option to make the world of Tamriel an engaging place to be?

Smackosynthesis

So.. what is overland?

spartaxoxo

Smackosynthesis wrote: »

So.. what is overland?

Handcrafted content, as the devs called it. The story quests and such.

xericdx

Again, why are we focusing so much to adding a difficulty slider that affect the ZONE (i.e. normal VS vet) instead of looking at something that affect the player (e.g. increasing damage received, etc.)?

Sure, it does not solve everything (no smarter AI, etc.) but: it does not "split the community", it is much easier to implement, can easily be made optional and rewards scaled intelligently so that people don't feel either forced or punished to go with or without it.

The_Titan_Tim

xericdx wrote: »

Again, why are we focusing so much to adding a difficulty slider that affect the ZONE (i.e. normal VS vet) instead of looking at something that affect the player (e.g. increasing damage received, etc.)?

How a Difficulty Slider would work in an MMO, would be character based, not Zone based.

One way it could be accomplished is taking the version of Overland we have now, labeling it Story difficulty which would be it’s own servers that way players can experience the game with other people of like-mind that aren’t farming bosses due to the lower quality drops of current ESO, this would alleviate the associated problems with immersion.

For players feeling lonely in Story mode, a remedy to this separation could be towns as a server overlap area. Which leads to the other two to three other difficulties that would coincide together outside of towns fighting against the smarter AI, being Normal, Veteran, and possibly a Master difficulty.

Normal difficulty could provide the new baseline AI changes that would result in smarter more thought provoking fights, resulting in a tiny chance of gold item drops.

Veteran difficulty which would introduce significantly harder hits being taken and dealing slighty less damage, resulting in a slightly higher chance of gold drops.

Master difficulty should provide the hardest challenge yet, resulting in massive amounts of damage being taken by the player, damage dealt even lower. This would have the highest chance of gold gear dropping and as an added twist, group wipes could result in a wayshrine trip for Overland.

As the rewards are only “Quality” any player on any difficulty could still upgrade their Standard gear to Legendary to be on par with players on Master.

This difficulty slider could be universally adapted and replace the “Normal/Veteran” sliders already in the game, allowing for Story mode difficulty being found in dungeons and even trials as a new scaled back player and companion experience, providing much greater options for players of any and all skill levels.

CP5

xericdx wrote: »

Again, why are we focusing so much to adding a difficulty slider that affect the ZONE (i.e. normal VS vet) instead of looking at something that affect the player (e.g. increasing damage received, etc.)?

Sure, it does not solve everything (no smarter AI, etc.) but: it does not "split the community", it is much easier to implement, can easily be made optional and rewards scaled intelligently so that people don't feel either forced or punished to go with or without it.

My reasoning is, it doesn't matter if I halve my damage most things will only survive 1-2s more than they already do, and most enemies waste upwards of 10s on worthless skills resulting in any bonuses they receive being wasted. 10x0=0 and all. We can already simulate this with using poor quality gear and what not, but it feels like we're intentionally making mistakes to give the enemies a chance, but things like using an AOE skill on a group of enemies just nullifies most challenges.

And since instances already exist, are used literally everywhere, and in most cases for this exact purpose, it would be easier I feel for ZOS to simply create a new ruleset for overland, like they do for each of the different versions of Cyrodiil, and while giving a moderate buff to enemies in this instance for health and damage, would mostly need to come down to replacing those worthless skills with ones that are impactful and matter. I mean, conjurers literally blow bubbles to fight, what does it matter if they survive 10x as long when it amounts to nothing?

I_killed_Vivec

The one thing that is apparent to me about the various notions of vet overland put forward by people here is that they all result in an explosion of "servers" or "shards" or simply put, player segregation.

Regardless of whether vet overland is a good idea or not it cannot live with the ethos of 1T - something that ZoS say is profoundly valuable.

What was the criticism of the VR system? "The zones are empty".

What was the criticism of Craglorn? "The zone is empty". And "You're forced to group up to do some of the content".

Make it hard, make it so you have to group up, and the zones will be empty.

ZoS have already seen this, they already know how people react to challenging content. And it would appear that they want people of differing levels to come together so that zones aren't empty. Would they throw that away?

If they want to make bosses harder then why not reuse the undaunted scrolls - "If you want a greater challenge, pick up the scroll"...

At which point all your gear and companions are negated, and one arm is tied behind your back.

Even then though, it would have to be a solo fight - don't want to be helped out by those casuals spamming light attacks

SilverBride

Let's not overlook one important consideration.

Suppose they create a separate veteran overland. We can't assume it would have more difficult mobs with better AI and different mechanics. It could very well be that Veteran Overland would debuff the character as they enter, thus making it more difficult in the process.

Remember Account Wide Achievements? A lot of players wanted this feature but many were very unhappy with how it was implemented.

CP5

They wouldn't need better AI, the simplest and most effective thing they could do, as I've previously stated, is swap out their worthless abilities with ones that matter. Like replacing the 10 second 'taking aim' with the arrow barrage skill the goblin archers in frostvault use. This is how many enemies function in dungeons and trials already, like before when I mentioned how normal Lord Warden's meteor will always leave a full health player almost dead, whereas vet Lord Warden's will oneshot no matter what. Differentiating abilities between normal and vet is something they're apparently able to do, and is a major part of what would be needed.

And as for the dead zones/dividing players, again, any meaningfully populated zone already has multiple instances so curating the player population, aka shuffling players around so those with similar interest are grouped together would likely not have much of a major impact. And with many players likely having skipped years worth of zone content, those old dead DLC zones could very well see a more populated vet instance rather than the normal one. If you wish to raise the argument about those topics, please at least address those points, I'd be interested to see what people who are worried about those issues think on those points.

The_Titan_Tim

CP5 wrote: »

And as for the dead zones/dividing players, again, any meaningfully populated zone already has multiple instances so curating the player population, aka shuffling players around so those with similar interest are grouped together would likely not have much of a major impact. And with many players likely having skipped years worth of zone content, those old dead DLC zones could very well see a more populated vet instance rather than the normal one. If you wish to raise the argument about those topics, please at least address those points, I'd be interested to see what people who are worried about those issues think on those points.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/building-an-mmo-for-solo-players-in-the-elder-scrolls-online-1

In a recent interview done of Rich Lambert, he explained that one of the biggest challenges facing ESO is that their fanbase(us) want a Singleplayer experience, that people want to be able to immerse themselves in their game like a traditional Elder Scrolls game.

Having a Story Mode, and an everything else server would remedy that problem for people who either want to immerse themselves and roleplay, or are incapable of getting better at the game by choice, maybe they have a disability?

Towns as areas where the servers overlap for people in Story and the other Advanced AI server that every other difficult play together on, would be an excellent idea, as would not locking characters into servers, if you enjoy player interaction in your experience, you’ll get a lot more of it, just for running Normal difficulty and if it’s too hard, you could switch back at any point without losing progress.

Apparently people are shouting from the rooftops that they want a solo experience, this provides every solution IMO.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

And as for the dead zones/dividing players, again, any meaningfully populated zone already has multiple instances so curating the player population, aka shuffling players around so those with similar interest are grouped together would likely not have much of a major impact.

It wouldn't have a major impact on highly populated zones. It WOULD have a major impact on low population zones. The devs are concerned because it would be a major impact.

And with many players likely having skipped years worth of zone content, those old dead DLC zones could very well see a more populated vet instance rather than the normal one.

Which would be good for the vet zone, and bad for the normal one.

If you wish to raise the argument about those topics, please at least address those points, I'd be interested to see what people who are worried about those issues think on those points.

I have addressed that multiple times before, but I have never got a response about the low population/dead zones.

It's always been well the vets would be fine. And the healthy zones would be fine. This sidesteps the entire problem, which isn't with the vets and the high population areas. It is with the low population zones and the people who cannot solo a world boss.

SilverBride

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

Having a Story Mode, and an everything else server would remedy that problem for people who either want to immerse themselves and roleplay, or are incapable of getting better at the game by choice...

Or it could be that some players do not see Veteran Dungeons, Trials and Arenas as their goal. This doesn't mean they haven't "gotten better at the game".

My personal end game is doing every quest in every zone on every character. And gearing myself in 2 full sets with gold weapons with the best traits and enchants for how I play. And soloing some Dungeons and World Bosses. And decorating my multiple houses. And doing well in my Trading Guild. And making friends.

I do not participate in the traditional end game veteran content but I have gotten better at the game.

CP5

spartaxoxo wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

And as for the dead zones/dividing players, again, any meaningfully populated zone already has multiple instances so curating the player population, aka shuffling players around so those with similar interest are grouped together would likely not have much of a major impact.

It wouldn't have a major impact on highly populated zones. It WOULD have a major impact on low population zones. The devs are concerned because it would be a major impact.

And with many players likely having skipped years worth of zone content, those old dead DLC zones could very well see a more populated vet instance rather than the normal one.

Which would be good for the vet zone, and bad for the normal one.

If you wish to raise the argument about those topics, please at least address those points, I'd be interested to see what people who are worried about those issues think on those points.

I have addressed that multiple times before, but I have never got a response about the low population/dead zones.

It's always been well the vets would be fine. And the healthy zones would be fine. This sidesteps the entire problem, which isn't with the vets and the high population areas. It is with the low population zones and the people who cannot solo a world boss.

How would it be bad for the normal one if people aren't even participating in the normal one? You aren't going to get the large crowd of 'joins ESO for the newest chapter then leaves' to visit the older zones, and giving meaningful content to these older zones would require a different task entirely. Just because some dead zones would remain dead isn't a reason to use to say that giving those very zones a potentially more popular alternative would be a bad idea.

tonyblack

What I don’t understand with splitting population argument is that those who use it mostly convinced that harder overland wanted only by “small minority”. So what’s the harm to give that minority their own instance while leaving majority on regular ones? If anything those who want veteran option don’t engage with current zone content as it is because it’s boring and unrewarding experience. The zones which are populated would remain populated and the ones that are dead would remain dead. And players on both ends would enjoy the game in their own way, win-win. What even the value seeing others around in content mostly build for solo pve experience anyway?

One possible solution to remedy that is to unify zone chat of different instances or maybe even different zones so everyone can see it. Might be a big improvement for other areas too as it creates easier options for grouping for all sorts of content if needed.

peacenote

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Smackosynthesis wrote: »

So.. what is overland?

Handcrafted content, as the devs called it. The story quests and such.

You think? I would have described overland as the primary general world containing non-instanced enemies/content. So, world bosses, delves, anchors, mobs, crafting stations, etc. The open world where you can run around and see other players even if you aren't grouped with them. Quests can be found in overland or in instanced content (like dungeons) but they aren't what overland IS.

Maybe just a different perspective.

SilverBride wrote: »

Let's not overlook one important consideration.

Suppose they create a separate veteran overland. We can't assume it would have more difficult mobs with better AI and different mechanics. It could very well be that Veteran Overland would debuff the character as they enter, thus making it more difficult in the process.

Remember Account Wide Achievements? A lot of players wanted this feature but many were very unhappy with how it was implemented.

Yep, I'm so, so with you on this one. That's why a vague letter that's supposed to build up suspense and excitement only gives me anxiety. I hope that we get we get a clever, creative implementation that considers many viewpoints and effectively incorporates most playstyles in an exciting, inclusive way. I know that ZOS is capable of this and has delivered in the past (in my own humble opinion ofc). I assumed that when I said AwA would be nice to have that my playstyle would be valued and accommodated into the implementation. It was not. And that experience is definitely why I've fallen way more on the side of "just leave overland alone" than I used to. New systems like Housing and Stickerbook were fantastic (imo). But things like AwA (I won't even go there), the vampire rework (where the "MUST BE NICHE!" opinions carried the day), the transmutation functionality (could have been such a boost to crafters but instead we are all pushed to research everything), the outfit functionality (who's still angry that additional slots are per character and not per account?)... have all fallen short of their potential and/or were outright disruptive to certain types of players in an unnecessary way, and those experiences have taught me caution and stolen a lot of my hope and optimism.

francesinhalover

Overland bosses are fine. overland enemies are annoying so it's fine if they die easily. Quest bosses are too easy though.

Either a option to make overland elite enemies more tanky and do more damage, or a option to have all overland enemies more tanky and do more damage.
Player gets more xp. that's the trade in.

Even a tool or something.

Just debuff the player, but give it more xp.
would be amazing for questers that like challenge, because they don't grind xp but at least can keep up

peacenote

CP5 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

And as for the dead zones/dividing players, again, any meaningfully populated zone already has multiple instances so curating the player population, aka shuffling players around so those with similar interest are grouped together would likely not have much of a major impact.

It wouldn't have a major impact on highly populated zones. It WOULD have a major impact on low population zones. The devs are concerned because it would be a major impact.

And with many players likely having skipped years worth of zone content, those old dead DLC zones could very well see a more populated vet instance rather than the normal one.

Which would be good for the vet zone, and bad for the normal one.

If you wish to raise the argument about those topics, please at least address those points, I'd be interested to see what people who are worried about those issues think on those points.

I have addressed that multiple times before, but I have never got a response about the low population/dead zones.

It's always been well the vets would be fine. And the healthy zones would be fine. This sidesteps the entire problem, which isn't with the vets and the high population areas. It is with the low population zones and the people who cannot solo a world boss.

How would it be bad for the normal one if people aren't even participating in the normal one? You aren't going to get the large crowd of 'joins ESO for the newest chapter then leaves' to visit the older zones, and giving meaningful content to these older zones would require a different task entirely. Just because some dead zones would remain dead isn't a reason to use to say that giving those very zones a potentially more popular alternative would be a bad idea.

I do want to comment on this too. Let me tell you, the difference between one other person and no one is HUGE in a dead zone. When a lot of people say dead, they mean "very sparsely populated" not "literally no one." So it would matter a lot if that ONE person who might be there is now in a separate veteran zone/shard because of a flag that is set.

HOW bad? I don't know. But I do know that when I set out to accomplish something in a "dead" zone seeing someone once in a while makes a big, big difference in painting the picture that we are in an active MMO with other people in the world (which is what I personally want from this game) vs. the picture that I'm completely by myself. And that's just people running by. It is even more critical if I want to take on a world boss or anything where one other helping hand could help a lot. I'm thinking of how if you have even two people vs. one it makes it easier to not have to start over because one person can stay alive while another one revives. And then let's think about zone chat. Will we all be in the same chat for people trying to share quests, take on world bosses, make anchor groups, etc.? Will we be split? What's better/worse? All together in chat but unable to easily group and connect seems the worst, split such that there are less people answering and grouping seems almost as bad, while everyone in the same chat also able to group together easily seems like a much better experience. This becomes more and more true the less people in the zone there are.

Then there's the consideration that as populations are fractured, areas will seem "dead" much more quickly. Could that result in more people leaving the game? I would think that it could. If there are medium populated zones, that after a change are "dead" zones, how many more places will there be in ESO where a "please help with WB" comment is completely ignored? That is the question, when you start thinking about the future of the game vs. individual requests for harder content.

I have made my peace a long time ago with the idea that hard content is instanced, and overland is where you farm, and go to relax, and run around without too much of a challenge. If, say, 90% of the community wants overland to be tougher, then sure, by all means, make it harder. I'm game. But doing the whole "Solomon let's split the baby" solution is going to hurt the community if half of the folks like things the way it is, or find overland challenging, and half of the folks want harder content, and the solution is to split them so they aren't IN the same world. It sounds like it is a win-win but I bet it will be a lose-lose, because this is an MMO.

That may not be what happens/what we get... but if that IS the solution it's a "not seeing the forest for the trees" one, imo. As a veteran player, I'll stick with a newbie to help duo a world boss even if I'm carrying the weight, and end up with a feeling of satisfaction when we win... whereas I'll leave annoyed and unsatisfied if I could use just ONE MORE PLAYER to help me and the zone is dead because some players are in the "harder" or "easier" version of the same world and statistically it's much more likely I'm alone in my version. The shininess of a harder version will wear off quickly, but the feeling of "deadness" will last longer and cause people to move on. My two cents impersonating an oracle.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

How would it be bad for the normal one if people aren't even participating in the normal one?

Because splitting a population in half that's already barely sustainable will have negative impact on the people who ARE in that zone's ability to complete content.

Dead zone doesn't mean there's literally nobody there.

spartaxoxo

peacenote wrote: »

You think? I would have described overland as the primary general world containing non-instanced enemies/content. So, world bosses, delves, anchors, mobs, crafting stations, etc. The open world where you can run around and see other players even if you aren't grouped with them. Quests can be found in overland or in instanced content (like dungeons) but they aren't what overland IS.

Maybe just a different perspective.

Oh. How I actually define it is all the basic map stuff that you'd find in the zone guide. So public dungeons would count but not arenas. Same as you.

But, for the purposes of this thread, I think the discussion is mostly about the handcrafted quests.

BretonMage

francesinhalover wrote: »

Overland bosses are fine. overland enemies are annoying so it's fine if they die easily. Quest bosses are too easy though.

I agree. WBs are fine, and trash enemies are better if they die fast so we can move quickly. The things that could do with a difficulty boost imo are quest bosses, delve bosses and public dungeons.

I'm not wild about the idea of debuffing players. It feels like you've worked hard to build up your power, and it doesn't feel nice to have that stripped away.