Overland Content Feedback Thread

The_Titan_Tim

SilverBride wrote: »

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".

That’s fair, so you would fit the first half of my post; not the second. If you enjoy roleplaying, and want the easier experience, more power to you.

SilverBride

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

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".

That’s fair, so you would fit the first half of my post; not the second. If you enjoy roleplaying, and want the easier experience, more power to you.

I never once said I roleplay.

The_Titan_Tim

SilverBride wrote: »

I never once said I roleplay.

Roleplay (v): To participate in a role-playing game.

So, you have no aspirations to experience harder content, you wear sets that fit your playstyle, you design homes, to your taste, probably customize your character at outfit stations too. You choose either Damage, Healer, or Tank, and have a vision of a role for your character and don’t roleplay? You’re aware that you’re playing a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game, right? Everybody playing this game begin to role play the second they customize their character.
We’re walking around with swords and staves after all…

The idea that Overland should remain unenjoyable for players that hit over 15k DPS, or be killed for people that want an easier experience by forcing everyone to experience increased difficulty in a new AI, is something that people don’t want. There has to be a middle ground if you know of a better way that appeases all parties [Snip].

[Edited for minor bait]

SilverBride

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I never once said I roleplay.

Roleplay (v): To participate in a role-playing game.

Roleplaying is a term that is commonly used for when someone actively plays out scenarios with their characters. I don't do that.

colossalvoids

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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.

Pretty sure they can adjust the normal version also if that would be the case. Or make certain activities "normal only", that's fine. I'm pretty sure CP5 refers to people refusing to participate in current iteration though. Or ones who no longer helps new people for different reasons.

It's not like we're all doing normal Overland and suddenly three's only newbies left, ones who enjoys the current version would obviously stay, ones enjoying different things might also get back for grind or farming, I wouldn't seriously call it a split of playerbase if I just want to disconnect from unengaging zones for a time like I'm already doing with all two arenas we have (lmao) or soloing dungeons if fancy.

But that's ideal scenario though, nowadays I login only to do dungeons with people I know once per week as there's literally nothing else to do in the game (I'd PvP again but I'm on pc EU). Wish to replay old zones yet again (up to Murkmire), I've tried but difficulty level makes me quit every time after awhile, so my only hope is revival of actual endgame (be it healthy PvE or working PvP) or base experience tweaked for people like me, so we could at least do that. But even if the game is "fixed" one day, story content should be playable and enjoyable not only for beginners and people loving a soft breeze, at the very least main stories should have a different difficulty option as narrative currently is so far from an actual gameplay it's not even funny.

CP5

colossalvoids wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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.

Pretty sure they can adjust the normal version also if that would be the case. Or make certain activities "normal only", that's fine. I'm pretty sure CP5 refers to people refusing to participate in current iteration though. Or ones who no longer helps new people for different reasons.

It's not like we're all doing normal Overland and suddenly three's only newbies left, ones who enjoys the current version would obviously stay, ones enjoying different things might also get back for grind or farming, I wouldn't seriously call it a split of playerbase if I just want to disconnect from unengaging zones for a time like I'm already doing with all two arenas we have (lmao) or soloing dungeons if fancy.

But that's ideal scenario though, nowadays I login only to do dungeons with people I know once per week as there's literally nothing else to do in the game (I'd PvP again but I'm on pc EU). Wish to replay old zones yet again (up to Murkmire), I've tried but difficulty level makes me quit every time after awhile, so my only hope is revival of actual endgame (be it healthy PvE or working PvP) or base experience tweaked for people like me, so we could at least do that. But even if the game is "fixed" one day, story content should be playable and enjoyable not only for beginners and people loving a soft breeze, at the very least main stories should have a different difficulty option as narrative currently is so far from an actual gameplay it's not even funny.

That's exactly my point. Years ago I would be quicker on the draw to answer request to fight world bosses and what not, especially when in the old gold and silver zones, but before my current break from the game I would only ever step away from what I'm doing to give a werewolf bite. Otherwise I'm doing what most people like me would, writes, banking, selling things, and waiting for dungeon finders or guild groups to form. What is lost if people doing those things are given a version of overland where they would actually set out and adventure again? The people in the zone they left would likely not notice their absence except for in cities, which is some impact, sure, but not a significant one.

And if the argument is raised that 'there aren't enough players to justify this change' then the impact on normal zones wouldn't be noticeable, and if the argument is instead 'the impact would be significant' then it is clearly something a large number of players would want.

And to spartaxoxo's quote about the "negative impact on the people who ARE in that zone's ability to complete content," like I said, I rarely go out of my way to help with these request anymore when I am around because I mostly just log in for either 'things you do as quickly as possible (writs/endeavors)' or 'things that are planned in advance,' if there are champions out there who set out daily to help newer players that option would still be there for them, and beyond that, hopefully with a somewhat helpful combat tutorial many players would realize that they are more capable than they believe themselves to be and also be more likely to come together with similarly skilled players, rather than having a vet player solo the boss while they practice bad habits on the sidelines.

corrosivechains

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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.

If it's only a small minority of the playerbase asking for it, how would it then split the population in half? Weird how the common argument against the idea all boil down to appeals to majority, which is an informal fallacy in debate.

Then you get the whole "the dead zones will feel even more dead" just after the argument the game hasn't had any issues has been made. If dead zones are truly such an issue then something DEFINITELY needs to change with the game. It's contradictory.

Change can be scary, I get it, but change desperately needs to be embraced. Even Matt Firor is acknowledging it, and that's the man at the very tippy top.

SilverBride

corrosivechains wrote: »

If it's only a small minority of the playerbase asking for it, how would it then split the population in half? Weird how the common argument against the idea all boil down to appeals to majority, which is an informal fallacy in debate.

Splitting the playerbase is a negative effect that could happen if there was a separate veteran overland, so it is a valid contradiction. Pointing this out does not mean that we believe there are enough players who want this to make it worth the time and resources.

Blackbird_V

SilverBride wrote: »

corrosivechains wrote: »

If it's only a small minority of the playerbase asking for it, how would it then split the population in half? Weird how the common argument against the idea all boil down to appeals to majority, which is an informal fallacy in debate.

Splitting the playerbase is a negative effect that could happen if there was a separate veteran overland, so it is a valid contradiction. Pointing this out does not mean that we believe there are enough players who want this to make it worth the time and resources.

The people who want Veteran Overland mostly do not do normal overland stuff (mainly questing), or have already done it and cba again. So they're literally not doing anything, so them going to another instance isn't going to affect much. In addition, if players can chose to go to a Veteran Overland, then more power to them. It keeps players happy.

All this talk of "splitting playerbase" is not going to be as bad as you think it will be, or trying to imply.

SilverBride

Blackbird_V wrote: »

All this talk of "splitting playerbase" is not going to be as bad as you think it will be, or trying to imply.

A split playerbase isn't my only objection to this idea because I don't think enough players would use it to make it worthwhile.

My biggest objection is that it is unfair to all the others who play this game to customize the base game to the wants of one particular playstyle. The base game is for all players, experience and skill levels and should remain that way.

Parasaurolophus

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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.

Have you ever thought that in the normal version, if the overland is divided, bosses and anchors should be nerfed?

casparian

SilverBride wrote: »

The base game is for all players, experience and skill levels

I totally agree with this, this is the number one design principle that should govern whatever ZOS does with overland.

The problem is that in the status quo, the base game is not for all players, but only the subset who who don't enjoy challenging combat or skill-based encounters. An optional Veteran mode is the only way that overland can be for all players.

SilverBride

casparian wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The base game is for all players, experience and skill levels

I totally agree with this, this is the number one design principle that should govern whatever ZOS does with overland.

The problem is that in the status quo, the base game is not for all players, but only the subset who who don't enjoy challenging combat or skill-based encounters. An optional Veteran mode is the only way that overland can be for all players.

Overland IS for all players and is accessible to everyone. If a player chooses not to participate that is their choice, the same way that some players choose not to do PvP or ToT or Housing, etc. Not liking something doesnt mean being unable to do it.

Blackbird_V

SilverBride wrote: »

casparian wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The base game is for all players, experience and skill levels

I totally agree with this, this is the number one design principle that should govern whatever ZOS does with overland.

The problem is that in the status quo, the base game is not for all players, but only the subset who who don't enjoy challenging combat or skill-based encounters. An optional Veteran mode is the only way that overland can be for all players.

Overland IS for all players and is accessible to everyone. If a player chooses not to participate that is their choice, the same way that some players choose not to do PvP or ToT or Housing, etc. Not liking something doesnt mean being unable to do it.

We can literally say the same thing about Veteran Overland.

SilverBride

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

casparian wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The base game is for all players, experience and skill levels

I totally agree with this, this is the number one design principle that should govern whatever ZOS does with overland.

The problem is that in the status quo, the base game is not for all players, but only the subset who who don't enjoy challenging combat or skill-based encounters. An optional Veteran mode is the only way that overland can be for all players.

Overland IS for all players and is accessible to everyone. If a player chooses not to participate that is their choice, the same way that some players choose not to do PvP or ToT or Housing, etc. Not liking something doesnt mean being unable to do it.

We can literally say the same thing about Veteran Overland.

Overland has existed the way it is for 6 years, since One Tamriel. It is established as the base game. There is no veteran overland.

casparian

SilverBride wrote: »

casparian wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The base game is for all players, experience and skill levels

I totally agree with this, this is the number one design principle that should govern whatever ZOS does with overland.

The problem is that in the status quo, the base game is not for all players, but only the subset who who don't enjoy challenging combat or skill-based encounters. An optional Veteran mode is the only way that overland can be for all players.

Overland IS for all players and is accessible to everyone. If a player chooses not to participate that is their choice, the same way that some players choose not to do PvP or ToT or Housing, etc. Not liking something doesnt mean being unable to do it.

I can't imagine you actually buy this argument. Imagine if the only overland that existed were extremely difficult. I couldn't say to you "technically you can participate even though you can't get through all of it by playing the way you want to, whether you choose to participate is your choice. Not liking something doesn't mean being unable to do it." Technically being able to participate but only if you engage in a playstyle you don't like wouldn't make you happy any more than it makes those of us who want vet overland happy. For overland to be "for everyone", it has to be enjoyable for a large variety of playstyles, but currently it is only tuned to one variety of playstyle.

Blackbird_V

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

casparian wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The base game is for all players, experience and skill levels

I totally agree with this, this is the number one design principle that should govern whatever ZOS does with overland.

The problem is that in the status quo, the base game is not for all players, but only the subset who who don't enjoy challenging combat or skill-based encounters. An optional Veteran mode is the only way that overland can be for all players.

Overland IS for all players and is accessible to everyone. If a player chooses not to participate that is their choice, the same way that some players choose not to do PvP or ToT or Housing, etc. Not liking something doesnt mean being unable to do it.

We can literally say the same thing about Veteran Overland.

Overland has existed the way it is for 6 years, since One Tamriel. It is established as the base game. There is no veteran overland.

Change is always welcome and always a good thing. Without change, content becomes stagnant and boring. I seriously to this day not understand why you are so against us.

---

SilverBride

casparian wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Overland IS for all players and is accessible to everyone. If a player chooses not to participate that is their choice, the same way that some players choose not to do PvP or ToT or Housing, etc. Not liking something doesnt mean being unable to do it.

Imagine if the only overland that existed were extremely difficult.

Overland used to be more difficult. Players didn't like it and 2/3 of the content wasn't being done by most players. This is why the difficulty was changed.

casparian wrote: »

I couldn't say to you "technically you can participate even though you can't get through all of it by playing the way you want to, whether you choose to participate is your choice. Not liking something doesn't mean being unable to do it."

The difference is that every player can't succeed at challenging content but everyone can succeed at the current overland difficulty. Not doing something a player is unable to do isn't the same thing as not doing it because they don't like it.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

All this talk of "splitting playerbase" is not going to be as bad as you think it will be, or trying to imply.

A split playerbase isn't my only objection to this idea because I don't think enough players would use it to make it worthwhile.

My biggest objection is that it is unfair to all the others who play this game to customize the base game to the wants of one particular playstyle. The base game is for all players, experience and skill levels and should remain that way.

If it isn't for enough players to be worthwhile then what impact would there be on zone population? Very little likely, so hows that a concern?

And your biggest objection, 'the base game is for all players,' then why doesn't it offer choice like literally all other pieces of content across the game where gameplay difficulty is a factor? Why should any concessions be made, again, for solo dungeons, if it is just giving a choice to players of a particular playstyle?

SilverBride wrote: »

casparian wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The base game is for all players, experience and skill levels

I totally agree with this, this is the number one design principle that should govern whatever ZOS does with overland.

The problem is that in the status quo, the base game is not for all players, but only the subset who who don't enjoy challenging combat or skill-based encounters. An optional Veteran mode is the only way that overland can be for all players.

Overland IS for all players and is accessible to everyone. If a player chooses not to participate that is their choice, the same way that some players choose not to do PvP or ToT or Housing, etc. Not liking something doesnt mean being unable to do it.

A kiddie pool is accessible to everyone, but if you enjoy swimming, you'll be very disappointed. I want to enjoy THE WORLD OF TAMRIEL but since it is very much like a kiddie pool to me I can't, because I've enjoyed the swimming that is ESO's gameplay and going to try to do something so 'shallow' isn't enjoyable to me. I want to explore, enjoy the world and its stories, but as a video game, a form of interactive medium, the gameplay involved with it is so painfully simplistic that I can't. This isn't equal to people not wanting to pvp because at their core they don't enjoy fighting other players, it is people wanting to do the content but no concessions are being made to make it enjoyable for them. Unlike, say, dungeons, that offer choice to increase the scope of players who can enjoy it.

What is the problem with THE WORLD OF TAMRIEL offering choices to better engage a wider pool of players, in a way that doesn't impact you.

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

casparian wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The base game is for all players, experience and skill levels

I totally agree with this, this is the number one design principle that should govern whatever ZOS does with overland.

The problem is that in the status quo, the base game is not for all players, but only the subset who who don't enjoy challenging combat or skill-based encounters. An optional Veteran mode is the only way that overland can be for all players.

Overland IS for all players and is accessible to everyone. If a player chooses not to participate that is their choice, the same way that some players choose not to do PvP or ToT or Housing, etc. Not liking something doesnt mean being unable to do it.

We can literally say the same thing about Veteran Overland.

Overland has existed the way it is for 6 years, since One Tamriel. It is established as the base game. There is no veteran overland.

Yes, there is no vet overland, and there wasn't an outfit/dye system, and there weren't companions, and there weren't normal/vet dungeons, and there weren't trials (at all), and there weren't dragons, or year long stories, or different fur stock of khajiit, or access to the imperial city, or battlegrounds, or many other things. Should the game never change? Ever? To try to stem problems players have?

It is arbitrary to say "this is now where things are perfect and change shouldn't happen again" because it was just that kind of change that got you back to the game, but if that 'perfection' status was applied before one tamriel you would likely have never came back, wouldn't that have been for the worse? And if so, how can you so confidently say that now things are perfect and should never change?

The_Titan_Tim

SilverBride wrote: »

Overland used to be more difficult. Players didn't like it and 2/3 of the content wasn't being done by most players. This is why the difficulty was changed.

As someone who used to play in those servers, and can speak for them, most players back in 2015 were driven into PvP as it was the main content back then, Undaunted wasn’t something people started getting interested into until 2016, and leveling up was much easier to do from Veteran Rank 1 to 14 in Cyrodiil delves because the monsters scaled with you while overland did not, so you had to continuously move to level in Overland.

Silver and Gold might have been low population due to the fact that players could either push their main to the region or take under 5 minutes in the character editor to make a level 3 that’s instantly in the faction you’re trying to play.

The old system would have worked if Silver and Gold were your faction dominating the other two, instead of a slightly more difficult version of content that’s accessible IMMEDIATELY after making a new character, something encouraged as you couldn’t do everything on every class back then.

Nightblade overland used to be extremely painful just starting, you had no heals and no champion points, in the current state of ESO, it would work.

Let’s face it though; this game was designed and marketed a PvP game, the entire concept of it was war with other factions, Cyrodiil, and riding the Oblivion nostalgia, so it’s not surprising that players were mostly focused with that.

spartaxoxo

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

.Let’s face it though; this game was designed and marketed a PvP game, the entire concept of it was war with other factions, Cyrodiil, and riding the Oblivion nostalgia, so it’s not surprising that players were mostly focused with that.

No. It wasn't. It was marketed as an MMO with both PvP and PvE put into major focus. The game had a lot of marketing around playing the way you want to play.

CP5 wrote: »

If it isn't for enough players to be worthwhile then what impact would there be on zone population? Very little likely, so hows that a concern?

The impact would very from zone to zone.

CP5 wrote: »

And to spartaxoxo's quote about the "negative impact on the people who ARE in that zone's ability to complete content," like I said, I rarely go out of my way to help with these request anymore when I am around because I mostly just log in for either 'things you do as quickly as possible (writs/endeavors)' or 'things that are planned in advance,' if there are champions out there who set out daily to help newer players that option would still be there for them, and beyond that, hopefully with a somewhat helpful combat tutorial many players would realize that they are more capable than they believe themselves to be and also be more likely to come together with similarly skilled players, rather than having a vet player solo the boss while they practice bad habits on the sidelines.

Just because you don't, doesn't mean there are plenty of other people that would. I don't go out every day seeking a new player to help, and I doubt anyone does. I go there for the zone content, dailies, quests, etc. And if I happen to see someone who needs help, I can and sometimes do assist them. This assistance is provided because I am in the same zone alone.

CP5

spartaxoxo wrote: »

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

.Let’s face it though; this game was designed and marketed a PvP game, the entire concept of it was war with other factions, Cyrodiil, and riding the Oblivion nostalgia, so it’s not surprising that players were mostly focused with that.

No. It wasn't. It was marketed as an MMO with both PvP and PvE put into major focus. The game had a lot of marketing around playing the way you want to play.

But trials weren't a thing at launch, dungeons had fixed levels with little to draw people to them, the end game was cyrodiil and that was the direction the game sent players.

SilverBride

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Overland used to be more difficult. Players didn't like it and 2/3 of the content wasn't being done by most players. This is why the difficulty was changed.

As someone who used to play in those servers, and can speak for them, most players back in 2015 were driven into PvP as it was the main content back then, Undaunted wasn’t something people started getting interested into until 2016, and leveling up was much easier to do from Veteran Rank 1 to 14 in Cyrodiil delves because the monsters scaled with you while overland did not, so you had to continuously move to level in Overland.

Silver and Gold might have been low population due to the fact that players could either push their main to the region or take under 5 minutes in the character editor to make a level 3 that’s instantly in the faction you’re trying to play.

The old system would have worked if Silver and Gold were your faction dominating the other two, instead of a slightly more difficult version of content that’s accessible IMMEDIATELY after making a new character, something encouraged as you couldn’t do everything on every class back then.

Nightblade overland used to be extremely painful just starting, you had no heals and no champion points, in the current state of ESO, it would work.

Let’s face it though; this game was designed and marketed a PvP game, the entire concept of it was war with other factions, Cyrodiil, and riding the Oblivion nostalgia, so it’s not surprising that players were mostly focused with that.

I played Beta and I played at launch, and I completed Silver and Gold on one character... never did it again because it was so frustrating dying all the time and few other players around to help with World Bosses or anything else.

Then Craglorn was literally impossible to quest in because every quest required a group and all players wanted to do was get in big groups and zerg around the zone. I left and didn't come back until One Tamriel.

I have the feeling that it would be very similar in a veteran overland. But I really don't see it happening.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

.Let’s face it though; this game was designed and marketed a PvP game, the entire concept of it was war with other factions, Cyrodiil, and riding the Oblivion nostalgia, so it’s not surprising that players were mostly focused with that.

No. It wasn't. It was marketed as an MMO with both PvP and PvE put into major focus. The game had a lot of marketing around playing the way you want to play.

But trials weren't a thing at launch, dungeons had fixed levels with little to draw people to them, the end game was cyrodiil and that was the direction the game sent players.

There was a ton of dungeons, and many people who enjoy PvE would find them a major draw for their own sake. They provided a PvE challenge. People trusted trials were forthcoming (and it was one of the first things they added). PvE activities were discussed often in the marketing, and were a primary draw to those players who wanted to engage in the PvE aspect of MMOs. Simple exploration of the whole world of Tamriel was why this game drew such a big casual audience. Elder Scrolls was a PvE franchise that had a lot of fans that got very excited at the idea of exploring Tamriel, and that they'd be able to do so while playing how they wanted.

They advertised that both types of players would find content they enjoyed. It was always a game that tried to cater to multiple audiences, for better or for worse. This split focus is actually what caused the development to suffer. And the devs have cited that lack of vision as a key reason as to why One Tamriel had to happen and why the game initially failed.

CP5

spartaxoxo wrote: »

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

.Let’s face it though; this game was designed and marketed a PvP game, the entire concept of it was war with other factions, Cyrodiil, and riding the Oblivion nostalgia, so it’s not surprising that players were mostly focused with that.

No. It wasn't. It was marketed as an MMO with both PvP and PvE put into major focus. The game had a lot of marketing around playing the way you want to play.

CP5 wrote: »

If it isn't for enough players to be worthwhile then what impact would there be on zone population? Very little likely, so hows that a concern?

The impact would very from zone to zone.

CP5 wrote: »

And to spartaxoxo's quote about the "negative impact on the people who ARE in that zone's ability to complete content," like I said, I rarely go out of my way to help with these request anymore when I am around because I mostly just log in for either 'things you do as quickly as possible (writs/endeavors)' or 'things that are planned in advance,' if there are champions out there who set out daily to help newer players that option would still be there for them, and beyond that, hopefully with a somewhat helpful combat tutorial many players would realize that they are more capable than they believe themselves to be and also be more likely to come together with similarly skilled players, rather than having a vet player solo the boss while they practice bad habits on the sidelines.

Just because you don't, doesn't mean there are plenty of other people that would. I don't go out every day seeking a new player to help, and I doubt anyone does. I go there for the zone content, dailies, quests, etc. And if I happen to see someone who needs help, I can and sometimes do assist them. This assistance is provided because I am in the same zone alone.

But should the expectation be "we can't give vet players a version of overland they will enjoy, if we do, they won't be here to clear content for newer players." When I was new, I remember banding together with players of similar skill to tackle content, and it was enjoyable and memorable. Sure, having an experienced player come by and solo the world boss while others chip in slightly, but I doubt it is as memorable or impactful of a player to player encounter. The zones have more than just the experienced players, so why aren't we taking into consideration that average players can also help each other.

"But in less populated zones, the potential impact is more significant." But the vet version could very well be more popular, so that argument is "It is better to keep a zone almost dead rather than offer a version of it that is more likely to be alive because of the impact it will have on a small subset of players who are in an almost dead zone, rather than also doing something to make the almost dead zone not almost dead."

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

I have the feeling that it would be very similar in a veteran overland. But I really don't see it happening.

While I do think a lotro style debuffs slider, challenge banners, etc. are the best course of action, I don't think it would turn out the same as back then. Leveling, gearing, and grouping are much easier now. The basic level of DPS is also higher. And I don't see them designing the quest bosses to require grouping.

spartaxoxo

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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.

Have you ever thought that in the normal version, if the overland is divided, bosses and anchors should be nerfed?

No, actually. This is actually a good counter proposal. When I think of splitting the playerbase, I think of the new and low power level players in zones that don't have much population. And how difficult things already are for them. If they were to change both zones instead of only making vet harder, that could potentially help. Although it does nothing for making the zone feel alive.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

But should the expectation be "we can't give vet players a version of overland they will enjoy, if we do, they won't be here to clear content for newer players." When I was new, I remember banding together with players of similar skill to tackle content, and it was enjoyable and memorable.

The game was also a lot newer and had more people to do things like that with. Every new zone makes it even harder. I suspect this was a factor in them dropping a zone dlc. It's important to balance the needs of vet players with the ones of new ones. Otherwise the population just slowly dwindles away. Keeping the game looking alive and ensuring newbies meet established players and get help is super important. Overland serves as such a meeting point.

This is one reason (of several) that I support something more along the lines of what LOTRO did. They even gave the enemies special attacks that only people with their personal difficulty setting turned up could trigger. The reception was overwhelmingly positive. I know the weakness of that is someone coming along and killing something faster than you, and that many of y'all would find that less immersive. But, I think it's probably better for the overall health of the game. Vets get to experience new gameplay and harder enemies, casuals still can get help. Neither gets everything they'd like but both overall win.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I have the feeling that it would be very similar in a veteran overland. But I really don't see it happening.

While I do think a lotro style debuffs slider, challenge banners, etc. are the best course of action, I don't think it would turn out the same as back then. Leveling, gearing, and grouping are much easier now. The basic level of DPS is also higher. And I don't see them designing the quest bosses to require grouping.

Leveling, gearing and grouping may be easier now for experienced players, but what about those new to ESO? And what would be the point since you can only do the quests once per character? That isn't replayability which is what I see as the focus of Matt's letter.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I have the feeling that it would be very similar in a veteran overland. But I really don't see it happening.

While I do think a lotro style debuffs slider, challenge banners, etc. are the best course of action, I don't think it would turn out the same as back then. Leveling, gearing, and grouping are much easier now. The basic level of DPS is also higher. And I don't see them designing the quest bosses to require grouping.

Leveling, gearing and grouping may be easier now for experienced players, but what about those new to ESO? And what would be the point since you can only do the quests once per character? That isn't replayability which is what I see as the focus of Matt's letter.

It's easier for those new to ESO too. They scale the character to the enemies and give level up rewards that make it easier for them. The only time one of my cousins, who is new to the game, asks for help is for world bosses and world events, etc.

If a separate vet instance is the new feature, and that's a pretty big if, then I would imagine they'd make the quests repeatable to get around the rewards issue.