Overland Content Feedback Thread

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't understand how difficult content is lacking with all the veteran dungeons and trials and arenas that are in this game. As far as solo challenges, doesn't that defeat the whole concept of a challenge? If a veteran overland wasn't challenging enough to require a group then what is the point?

Because it's the world of tamriel. The corners that provide engaging content are either group based or solo arenas, both of which people who have a desire for a more engaging overland have already run dozens of times, and if someone wants to do something outside of a group, as I said before, is to go into one of two arenas.

How does it not make sense that people want to:

• Explore the world of tamriel
• Have a satisfying and engaging time doing so
• Engage with years worth of content they've likely skipped
• Not want to be told to "go back to your corner"

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't understand how difficult content is lacking with all the veteran dungeons and trials and arenas that are in this game. As far as solo challenges, doesn't that defeat the whole concept of a challenge? If a veteran overland wasn't challenging enough to require a group then what is the point?

Because it's the world of tamriel. The corners that provide engaging content are either group based or solo arenas, both of which people who have a desire for a more engaging overland have already run dozens of times, and if someone wants to do something outside of a group, as I said before, is to go into one of two arenas.

How does it not make sense that people want to:

• Explore the world of tamriel
• Have a satisfying and engaging time doing so
• Engage with years worth of content they've likely skipped
• Not want to be told to "go back to your corner"

It's the base game, the story. It's not an alternative veteran option for players that are bored with the current challenging content.

Overland doesn't have to be challenging to be explored. In fact it's easier to do so if the player isn't having to stop every minute to fight off challenging mobs.

Engaging is subjective. There are many players that find overland engaging and satisfying just as it is.

If a player skipped content that was their choice. The same way I skip trials because it's not something I would enjoy.

CP5

"Base game" - there are base game dungeons
"The story" - in a videogame where player interaction and agency impacts the degree people can enjoy it
"Alternative to vet content" - it's not an alternative, it's an entire piece of the game that only accommodates players in 1 way
"Doesn't have to be challenging to be explored" - a kiddie pool can accommodate everyone, but if you want to swim you'll be disappointed

Engaging is subjective, so how come giving options, so more players can find the content subjectively good, is a bad thing?

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

"Base game" - there are base game dungeons
"The story" - in a videogame where player interaction and agency impacts the degree people can enjoy it
"Alternative to vet content" - it's not an alternative, it's an entire piece of the game that only accommodates players in 1 way
"Doesn't have to be challenging to be explored" - a kiddie pool can accommodate everyone, but if you want to swim you'll be disappointed

Engaging is subjective, so how come giving options, so more players can find the content subjectively good, is a bad thing?

Because it is not reasonable or fair to customize the entire base game for one particular playstyle, especially when the amount of players who would even use it is probably very small, based on the percentage of players that participate in veteran end game content.

CP5

Overland isn't "the entire base game." Many zones are dlc, many dungeons are base game, they're all just different types of content. And again, stating how it is unreasonable and unfair to give players options, so they can enjoy more of the world. The reason why we want this option to be given is because the world of tamriel aren't dungeons, it is the world. The largest thing that the elder scrolls franchise is known for. But we're used to swimming and overland is a puddle, we can't 'get into it' sure, but not enjoy it.

Is it your answer to my question then that, there are too few players, so it is unreasonable to ask them to do this, and that it would be unfair if they did?

martinhpb16_ESO

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't understand

We don't always have to understand, but we do need to be generous to compromise.

SilverBride

Yes I feel that there are too few players to justify it. But more importantly I feel that it is unfair to customize the entire base game and story (which includes DLCs because they also tell the story as the original zones do) for any one particular playstyle. There are multiple types of players that play this game and no one type deserves more consideration than any other.

spartaxoxo

I don't think modifying the game to allow more groups of players to enjoy things is unfair. In fact, I think it's desirable.

I want to see vet options for overland (in the form of debuffs, challenge banners, etc.).

I want to see solo versions of dungeon (no group rewards)

I want to see a new pvp mode because it's been so long, even though I'd never play it.

I want to see more houses added to the game. And more housing features that makes housing better. I was thrilled when they gave us inspection mode and the ability to link our houses in chat.

In general, I just want more stuff for the different types of players. It's a live service game after all.

tonyblack

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

"Base game" - there are base game dungeons
"The story" - in a videogame where player interaction and agency impacts the degree people can enjoy it
"Alternative to vet content" - it's not an alternative, it's an entire piece of the game that only accommodates players in 1 way
"Doesn't have to be challenging to be explored" - a kiddie pool can accommodate everyone, but if you want to swim you'll be disappointed

Engaging is subjective, so how come giving options, so more players can find the content subjectively good, is a bad thing?

Because it is not reasonable or fair to customize the entire base game for one particular playstyle.

I might not agree with some of your opinions due to my personal bias yet I could at least understand your point of view on most of them, but I’ve been reading this argument about “unfairness of customizing to one particular playstyle” for a while and I don’t get it. Why is it unfair? All dungeons, trials, arenas have normal mode customized for easy gameplay, veteran mode for harder, more engaging gameplay, most of them have hard mode for what could be called a challenging, hard gameplay and then you can go for extra challenges (by yourself, I admit) like score pushing, solo group content, doing with less people or using goofy builds, etc. That is done for both old “base game” and newer dlcs. Overland by default is easy and there is no option rather than engage it on easy mode or ignore it entirely.

So what makes it “unreasonable or unfair” to customize quests, delves and public dungeons for different playstyles if other pieces of content offer such customization (and quite successful at that)? Why wouldn’t it be an improvement if more players could enjoy it in different ways?

SilverBride

@spartaxoxo Your suggestions are reasonable in my opinion because they don't expect a complete reworking of overland and they include additional options for multiple different playstyles, not just one. I would support such changes.

TaSheen

But no one is actually pushing a permanent forced change to difficulty. Everyone (except for a "select few") is asking for optional. And those "select few" are not likely to get much of a hearing.

The real bottom line is that those of us who are perfectly happy with overland as it is right now are most likely NOT the demographic the devs are watching. When people are happy with what's available, they don't cause the developers any angst. And that's what the devs want - I actually think that's a truism especially in this game.

Optional tweaks are good. Seriously good. Well, up to a point of course - because if no one can iteratie an "uptick" or two, three five 20 however many when it comes to actual numbers in combat - the devs are likely going to do something no one will really like. If that doesn't scare you.... it should - revisit AWA for those who are still haveing a lot of angst with it.

Right now, "static" difficulety seems to be a bomb cyclone waiting to happen. If the devs choose to do something..... incontrovertible (and they certainly could do so) what will you do if you can't play overland at all because it's too hard?

I know what that would mean for me - I'd bid ESO a fond farewell.

I really think that the devs are well aware of demographics numbers. And I also believe that they will do whatever the game "needs" when it comes to those demographics. I.... feel as if that means my days are numbered here - but that's the bottom line in a game like this one.

This is the developers' game - along with the suits' game. The bottom line IS the money. I'm pretty sure the devs will toe the suits' line.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

@spartaxoxo Your suggestions are reasonable in my opinion because they don't expect a complete reworking of overland and they include additional options for multiple different playstyles, not just one. I would support such changes.

It wouldn't need an entire rework, ZOS has previously used instancing to provide 3 different types of each zone, with players divided between the instances (and therefore difficulty) based on faction choice. Reimplementing 'different rulesets for different zone instances' is simply an extension of what is done in every dungeon, arena, and trial. Even iterations of cyrodiil like the no proc sets one function the same way. The reason why I push for instancing so much is both the fact that raw stat changes won't fix incapable enemies, and having a different instance where those enemies are given different abilities, like is done in most every dungeon and trial, is work yes, but not a rework.

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

@spartaxoxo Your suggestions are reasonable in my opinion because they don't expect a complete reworking of overland and they include additional options for multiple different playstyles, not just one. I would support such changes.

It wouldn't need an entire rework, ZOS has previously used instancing to provide 3 different types of each zone, with players divided between the instances (and therefore difficulty) based on faction choice. Reimplementing 'different rulesets for different zone instances' is simply an extension of what is done in every dungeon, arena, and trial. Even iterations of cyrodiil like the no proc sets one function the same way. The reason why I push for instancing so much is both the fact that raw stat changes won't fix incapable enemies, and having a different instance where those enemies are given different abilities, like is done in most every dungeon and trial, is work yes, but not a rework.

Previously used... they are most likely no longer in existence, especially with them having to free up space like they did with AWA for instance. So how is this not a rework if they have to start from scratch and redo every overland mob with new abilities?

And it doesn't matter what they already do in dungeons, trials and arenas. That is comparing apples to oranges.

CP5

They, use them in every single dungeon. Creating multiple versions of an instance is as standard a technique as making a new map. It i simply a tool they have. And each zone only has a handful of enemy types, with many shared between zones. Modify the standard gray wolf and you just updated 1/5th of the wildlife in pretty much every base game zone for example. Then most humanoid enemies are based off of classes and have a basic toolkit from those, and considering ZOS updated every single vet boss and elite mob in an update pass for pts, doing such wide scale changes aren't unheard of.

Also, in case it seems outlandish to suggest large scale changes that are applied only to a particular instance (which again is what ZOS does in every trial and dungeon):

From Patch 2.1.4:

• Mages, skirmishers, and tanks have all been tweaked to have less dramatic variation. In general, mages will have less damage and more health, while tanks will have less health and more damage. This means the average fight length and amount of incoming damage will be more balanced, while retaining the thematic differences between monster types.
• All mage monsters now have more health, and output less damage.
• All tank monsters now have high spell and physical resistance.
• All mages now have low physical resistance, but high spell resistance.
• All skirmishers now have average physical and spell resistance.
• On average, delve bosses now have more health.
• Monsters throughout the game have had their faction abilities updated; you will now see these abilities more often in combat, and some abilities have had their effects adjusted to increase their impact in a fight.
• Bandit traps now persist for long periods of time, creating more danger as the fight goes on.
• Daedric Arches now summon Banekin to charge at enemies and explode until the arch is destroyed.
• The Necromancer's self-sacrifice now summons a ghost instead of a soul shriven, and they no longer sacrifice themselves at full health.
• Soldiers of the Covenant, Pact, and Dominion (in PVE zones) now use a Warhorn ability to rally and empower their allies in combat.
• Undead now have a chance to create an area of desecrated ground when killed, dealing damage over time to their enemies and healing undead allies.
• Vampires who drain health now heal nearby allies.

From Patch 2.4.5

• Healer
• The first tick of Focused Healing now begins 0.5 seconds after the channel begins, and also heals less for the first 3 ticks.
• Focused Healing now stops when the line of sight is broken. Previously, it would continue to channel without healing the target.
• Healers are now healed less by their own Focused Healing.
• Minor Wound can now be cast while silenced.

From Patch 4.0.5

• Monsters are no longer vulnerable to elements.
• They will not proc Explosion, Disintegration, Deep Freeze, Pestilence, or Venom due to Fire, Shock, Frost, Disease, or Poison attacks used against them.
• Likewise, monsters no longer have resistance values reduced against damage dealt by these elements.
• Monsters are no longer resistant to elements.
• They can now proc Burning, Concussion, Chill, Diseased, or Poison due to Fire, Shock, Frost, Disease, or Poison attacks used against them.
• Likewise, monsters no longer have resistance values raised against damage dealt by these elements.

In patch 2.1.4 ZOS made overland enemies all more the same, by making the difference between tanky enemies and damage dealing enemies cosmetic more than anything by standardizing their stats. And they also added a large number of abilities, shame that most of them die before they can use any of them, when was the last time you saw a necromancer use that sacrifice ability? In 2.4.5 we have an example of how an enemy with a defined role had that role gutted so heavily they may well not exist, contributing only noise rather than any sort of meaningful engagement in the fight. Then in 4.0.5 we see them remove elemental weaknesses from enemies, something that makes the game world more approachable (so for example, DK's can explore daedra infested tombs without being at a disadvantage), but the same things could be leveraged still to make fights more interesting. Like making tank enemies actually durable.

"And it doesn't matter what they already do in dungeons, trials and arenas. That is comparing apples to oranges."

Yes, they are apples to oranges, so suggesting people who want to explore the world of tamriel just settle with apples when they actually wouldn't mind oranges misses their point. We want to have a meaningful time exploring the world and experiencing its story. ZOS has the tech to give that option without impacting you, so why does it need to be such a divisive topic to ask for a choice?

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

Yes, they are apples to oranges, so suggesting people who want to explore the world of tamriel just settle with apples when they actually wouldn't mind oranges misses their point.

There is no reason a player can't enjoy challenging content and also enjoy exploring Tamriel, and there is nothing preventing them from doing so. If they choose not to because they find it boring, that is their decision.

FlopsyPrince

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I personally in favor of giving a vet overland option in the form of a debuff toggle. And solo story dungeons, that don't have group drops. I wouldn't favor a PvE Cyrodiil because PvP population is already struggling with low numbers. In general, I don't think additional options should come at too great of an expense of the population of the people already engaged in the content. So, a story mode for dungeons shouldn't come with gear, transmutes, etc. or count for pledges so as not to pull too many people from the group dungeons.

So how well is the "force PvE players into PvP in Cyrodiil" working out?

MrLachance

Elsonso wrote: »

MrLachance wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't see a need to bring new life to areas less explored because I do every quest in every zone on all my characters and I run into other players everywhere I go.

To clarify, I play PCNA in the afternoon and sometimes evening to night.

I play also on PC EU and NA and those areas are empty. Like nobody wants to do anything, because everything dies in two hits anyway. Most people do their archievements and just rush through quest fast like clicking simulator. Thats also what i hear people sayin. Even new players after they got used to mechanics, they get bored very fast, because they feel like the longer they play, the easier the content becomes.

The only times i see people when they do their dailys and some event stuff, when i do them myself and thats it. All those many events over the year seem to keep the quest arenas filled, because without they are super emtpy. except thoose autopilot dragon/dolmen grind trains for Dragon Blood and exp.

I don't think that people encounter lightly populated areas because the game is not hard enough. I think it is because there is nothing there to do. Killing overland mobs, easy or hard, isn't something to do, it is something that is done while doing something more interesting.

What i say isnt based on what i think or what i dont think. Its based on what the people say about that. And my experience confirms all of this. I stopped storyquests since clockwork.

MrLachance

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

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

You are arguing against yourself here

The base game as it stands is customized for only one particular playstyle - easy.

The whole point of this thread is that people want the game customised for more than one playstyle which is the very definition of fair!

This crusade you are on is tying your argument in knots.

Just allow people an option

Easy isn't a playstyle. Casual, veteran end game, PvP and Roleplay are some examples of playstyles.

Easy is an opinion. What some find easy others find difficult. Overland isn't customized for any particular group but rather so that it can be accomplished by everyone. Low levels and those new to ESO may find it difficult, while those who have developed their characters and are experienced may find it easy, but everyone is capable of completing the quests and the story.

Veteran overland, on the other hand, would be customized specifically for veteran end game players. That is not fair.

"Easy is an option" available for every piece of pve content in the entirety of the game where difficulty is concerned except for the world. Every other piece of pve content in the game that has combat difficulty as a variable that can offers this choice, so it can be accomplished by and more accommodating to more players, which is a good thing. Adding a solo version of dungeons would be a good thing since it would open content others would likely never touch to them, so they can enjoy it, and the more people enjoying a more of the game would be better.

How is it unfair to expect a standard expressed everywhere else in the game to be implemented into the world of tamriel so that players who find beginner-friendly difficulty mind-numbingly dull can actually enjoy the world the Elder Scrolls takes place in, and was likely the thing that brought many of them here in the first place?

Many players do not find overland "mind-numbingly dull".

Many but not even close to the majority. And if you look at the numerous posts about the topic over the years until this one got created, always the same people you can count on two hands argueing against an army of disappointed people, its pretty clear that the frightening majority wants harder overland difficulty.

Nobody calls for cadwells Silver+Gold, but a healthy difficulty like pre one tamriel own faction overland wich still was way harder than this joke we have right now, would be great for everyone, wich you cant deny with your Rich quotes or whoever from ZOS, because they also stated in their interviews that a Ton of people played it. There also never were any complains about it in forum except minor quests and bugs.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

Yes, they are apples to oranges, so suggesting people who want to explore the world of tamriel just settle with apples when they actually wouldn't mind oranges misses their point.

There is no reason a player can't enjoy challenging content and also enjoy exploring Tamriel, and there is nothing preventing them from doing so. If they choose not to because they find it boring, that is their decision.

If you don't understand how the actions a player takes in interacting with the world and its stories influences their ability to enjoy it, then it is what it is. But I can't take the umpteenth 'end of the world' threat seriously when the only thing you need to stop it is some random person to do a dozen fetch quest then stand in a circle at the year capping encounter. It undermines the story because gameplay impacts story in video games for many players. If ZOS were to give an option, it could then be a decision for those players to engage with the world of tamriel and thus spend more time in the game.

I'm just voicing my opinion that a standard that is expressed literally everywhere else in the game is extended to apply to the world of tamriel to accomplish the same goals of engaging more players, keeping them around longer, and allowing the game to benefit in the long term. Turning a deaf ear to those concerns drives players away, undermining their concerns creates conflict that doesn't need to be there, and expecting ZOS to be able to use the tools they already have with modifications they've been shown to be able to make is reasonable if they want the game to last.

spartaxoxo

MrLachance wrote: »

Many but not even close to the majority. And if you look at the numerous posts about the topic over the years until this one got created, always the same people you can count on two hands argueing against an army of disappointed people, its pretty clear that the frightening majority wants harder overland difficulty.

The devs have explicitly stated that it isn't the majority that wants it, and the majority of players avoid difficult content. This also aligns with the trophy data on psn, the harder the trophy the less people have it. The majority of people in the threads are always gonna be people have that a complaint.

CP5 wrote: »

They, use them in every single dungeon. Creating multiple versions of an instance is as standard a technique as making a new map. It i simply a tool they have.

The devs have stated outright that creating separate settings is a detriment and also that it would be a ton of work.

The may have already done it anyway just because they think it would be best for the playerbase though. But, they have talked in the past about how a separate instance is not simple.

SilverBride

MrLachance wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Many players do not find overland "mind-numbingly dull".

Many but not even close to the majority. And if you look at the numerous posts about the topic over the years until this one got created, always the same people you can count on two hands argueing against an army of disappointed people, its pretty clear that the frightening majority wants harder overland difficulty.

The numerous threads started before this pinned one were mostly created by the same small handful of posters. This thread was created to stop the weekly new threads because of the negative experience it was creating for many forum users.

MrLachance wrote: »

Nobody calls for cadwells Silver+Gold, but a healthy difficulty like pre one tamriel own faction basegame would be great for everyone, wich you cant deny with your Rich or whoever from ZOS, because they also stated in their interviews that a Ton of people played with. There also never were any complains about it in forum except minor quests and bugs.

The pre One Tamriel base game overland was nothing like the veteran overland that some players are requesting here. I know because I was there and I played through it. And the only statements I have seen from Rich is that no one was playing 2/3 of the game (Cadwell's Silver and Gold) because players made it clear that they do not want difficulty in the story. And there were plenty of complaints about it.

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

There is no reason a player can't enjoy challenging content and also enjoy exploring Tamriel, and there is nothing preventing them from doing so. If they choose not to because they find it boring, that is their decision.

If you don't understand how the actions a player takes in interacting with the world and its stories influences their ability to enjoy it, then it is what it is.

I understand that players have different ideas of what is fun and not everything in the game is going to be fun for everyone. So we make choices to participate in certain content or not based upon where our interests lie. Whether or not to participate in any aspect of the game is our own personal choice. Nothing stops any player from participating in any part of the game but their own decision not to.

MrLachance

spartaxoxo wrote: »

MrLachance wrote: »

Many but not even close to the majority. And if you look at the numerous posts about the topic over the years until this one got created, always the same people you can count on two hands argueing against an army of disappointed people, its pretty clear that the frightening majority wants harder overland difficulty.

The devs have explicitly stated that it isn't the majority that wants it, and the majority of players avoid difficult content. This also aligns with the trophy data on psn, the harder the trophy the less people have it. The majority of people in the threads are always gonna be people have that a complaint.

CP5 wrote: »

They, use them in every single dungeon. Creating multiple versions of an instance is as standard a technique as making a new map. It i simply a tool they have.

The devs have stated outright that creating separate settings is a detriment and also that it would be a ton of work.

The may have already done it anyway just because they think it would be best for the playerbase though. But, they have talked in the past about how a separate instance is not simple.

It was explicitly related to Cadwells Silver+Gold. Not about the Own Faction Overland and Rich also explicitly stated that everyone loved it and a ton of people played it.

spartaxoxo

MrLachance wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

MrLachance wrote: »

Many but not even close to the majority. And if you look at the numerous posts about the topic over the years until this one got created, always the same people you can count on two hands argueing against an army of disappointed people, its pretty clear that the frightening majority wants harder overland difficulty.

The devs have explicitly stated that it isn't the majority that wants it, and the majority of players avoid difficult content. This also aligns with the trophy data on psn, the harder the trophy the less people have it. The majority of people in the threads are always gonna be people have that a complaint.

CP5 wrote: »

They, use them in every single dungeon. Creating multiple versions of an instance is as standard a technique as making a new map. It i simply a tool they have.

The devs have stated outright that creating separate settings is a detriment and also that it would be a ton of work.

The may have already done it anyway just because they think it would be best for the playerbase though. But, they have talked in the past about how a separate instance is not simple.

It was explicitly related to Cadwells Silver+Gold. Not about the Own Faction Overland and Rich also explicitly stated that everyone loved it and a ton of people played it.

It was about both.

"So, we had that, Jeulen, at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out and we put the challenge into world bosses and into solo arenas and into dungeons and trials. People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff." <----past tense, about the old stuff.

I get that there’s a lot of people that do like the harder difficulty, but a HUGE portion of our player base just wants to do story, and they don’t want to have to struggle with difficult things.” <---- Transitions to talking about how things are, including the use of the present tense. This is about the current state of the game.

The majority didn't do it then and they don't do it now. They explicitly cited this as a concern because it was a concern.

SilverBride

This. ^

MrLachance

SilverBride wrote: »

MrLachance wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Many players do not find overland "mind-numbingly dull".

Many but not even close to the majority. And if you look at the numerous posts about the topic over the years until this one got created, always the same people you can count on two hands argueing against an army of disappointed people, its pretty clear that the frightening majority wants harder overland difficulty.

The numerous threads started before this pinned one were mostly created by the same small handful of posters. This thread was created to stop the weekly new threads because of the negative experience it was creating for many forum users.

MrLachance wrote: »

Nobody calls for cadwells Silver+Gold, but a healthy difficulty like pre one tamriel own faction basegame would be great for everyone, wich you cant deny with your Rich or whoever from ZOS, because they also stated in their interviews that a Ton of people played with. There also never were any complains about it in forum except minor quests and bugs.

The pre One Tamriel base game overland was nothing like the veteran overland that some players are requesting here. I know because I was there and I played through it. And the only statements I have seen from Rich is that no one was playing 2/3 of the game (Cadwell's Silver and Gold) because players made it clear that they do not want difficulty in the story. And there were plenty of complaints about it.

[snip]

Well, i played through it with all 4 classes too and i can say that this was what people are asking for. But you cant because the majority dont specifically say that they want Cadwells Silver + Gold difficulty niveau. They just want healthy difficulty to feel immersive again and that was pre one tamriel own faction overland. Instead of killing everything in not even a half rotation. Good example was Own Faction Molag Bal and One Tamriel Molag Bal. Simply a joke. [snip]

[edited for baiting]

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

There is no reason a player can't enjoy challenging content and also enjoy exploring Tamriel, and there is nothing preventing them from doing so. If they choose not to because they find it boring, that is their decision.

If you don't understand how the actions a player takes in interacting with the world and its stories influences their ability to enjoy it, then it is what it is.

I understand that players have different ideas of what is fun and not everything in the game is going to be fun for everyone. So we make choices to participate in certain content or not based upon where our interests lie. Whether or not to participate in any aspect of the game is our own personal choice. Nothing stops any player from participating in any part of the game but their own decision not to.

Then why is it a bad idea to add an option to engage people in the largest piece of content in the game, when all other places offer choice and this one area does not? Is it good for the long term health of the game to deny players options just because some people like things as is and wouldn't personally benefit?

Blackbird_V

SilverBride wrote: »

Yes I feel that there are too few players to justify it. But more importantly I feel that it is unfair to customize the entire base game and story (which includes DLCs because they also tell the story as the original zones do) for any one particular playstyle. There are multiple types of players that play this game and no one type deserves more consideration than any other.

Ok then. I hope ZoS removes normal mode from dungeons, trials and arenas and have it forced on Veteran as that is 'our corner' and it's unfair that that part of the game is also customised to casual players. It should be veteran only.

---

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

Yes, they are apples to oranges, so suggesting people who want to explore the world of tamriel just settle with apples when they actually wouldn't mind oranges misses their point.

There is no reason a player can't enjoy challenging content and also enjoy exploring Tamriel, and there is nothing preventing them from doing so. If they choose not to because they find it boring, that is their decision.

Just like it will be your decision not to opt in for Veteran Overland, while others like me, @CP5 etc. can.

---

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

There is no reason a player can't enjoy challenging content and also enjoy exploring Tamriel, and there is nothing preventing them from doing so. If they choose not to because they find it boring, that is their decision.

If you don't understand how the actions a player takes in interacting with the world and its stories influences their ability to enjoy it, then it is what it is.

I understand that players have different ideas of what is fun and not everything in the game is going to be fun for everyone. So we make choices to participate in certain content or not based upon where our interests lie. Whether or not to participate in any aspect of the game is our own personal choice. Nothing stops any player from participating in any part of the game but their own decision not to.

Perfect. Let's have Veteran Overland then and you can decide not to participate in it, as it is your "personal choice".

colossalvoids

I don't think "overland feedback thread" should be "convince one single player for a year" one. [snip] It's just one player that have no idea about issues other part of playerbase having, it's fine and not affecting overall feedback given here by ones who care.

Also going from other threads on issues the game is objectively having this year same user used exactly the same actions to get em closed for going out of topic, so you decide if that's the route to go here.

[edited for bashing]

CP5

Issue is we haven't been given any indication that this thread has any meaning, since at two different points when ZOS commented on this, once before this thread's creation and one several months later, an identical response was given. That implied to me that nothing that was said here was looked at or understood, so we just wait until something happens. As for the back and forth, to me, it's mostly a way to keep relevant some direction we're looking generally looking for, using the same arguments against this idea as a point to reiterate and clarify what we'd like to see. You can't quantify 'how much harder' but you can explain in comparison from what we currently have to what we would like to see.