Overland Content Feedback Thread

Elsonso

Tannus15 wrote: »

If ZoS said they were going to try and address the issue players finding overland content too easy, how would you go about it?
What would be your preferred approach?

amonengelb16_ESO wrote: »

You are still ignoring the fact, that these people ask for "MORE OPTIONS". Not to delete your game or taking anything away from it. Clear?

It makes no difference how we would do it or what we ask for. ZOS is going to do ZOS. This is their game to ruin, not ours. Success or failure, they own the decision, design, implementation, and outcome. If 99% of the people in this thread want to do it one way, and ZOS wants to do it another way, it will get done the other way.

Discussions about how players would design it are interesting, but that is all they are, discussions about how players would do it. There is no meat on this bone.

Tannus15

Elsonso wrote: »

Tannus15 wrote: »

If ZoS said they were going to try and address the issue players finding overland content too easy, how would you go about it?
What would be your preferred approach?

amonengelb16_ESO wrote: »

You are still ignoring the fact, that these people ask for "MORE OPTIONS". Not to delete your game or taking anything away from it. Clear?

It makes no difference how we would do it or what we ask for. ZOS is going to do ZOS. This is their game to ruin, not ours. Success or failure, they own the decision, design, implementation, and outcome. If 99% of the people in this thread want to do it one way, and ZOS wants to do it another way, it will get done the other way.

Discussions about how players would design it are interesting, but that is all they are, discussions about how players would do it. There is no meat on this bone.

The point is that @SilverBride is clearly the most ardent supporter of the current status quo so it's interesting and worthwhile to find out what they see as the most acceptable option.

Ultimately ZoS are going to do Zos as you say, and it's going to be a combination of their internal beliefs based on the data they have from 2014 before one tam, the content that people already consume or ignore, and whatever other metrics they have as well as effort involved. I mean, 1 huge problem is they are literally incapable of regression testing the entire game, so while they could make sweeping changes to overland content, they lack the QA hours to make sure everything works as expected.

SilverBride wrote: »

Debuffs are the most that will happen if anything changes at all. They are not likely to redo all the overland mobs to have what some consider engaging mechanics. That would be a major change and Rich Lambert already stated that there are no major changes planned for overland difficulty.

This one actually isn't true. Several times in the past they have changed mob behaviour game wide, the one I remember most was trolls, because it broke the troll boss in vSO.

We had Cadwell Silver, we had Cadwell Gold, and players really didn't like it. It was too hard for them, and when we did One Tamriel, we ripped all that out based on player feedback. Like, nobody did it.

This one drives me nuts because I DID IT. I did silver and gold on my main and several alts, and I enjoyed the VR zones far more than the 1 to 50 zones.

1T is far, FAR better than the old system, I was a huge fan of it when it came out, and I remain a supporter. I wouldn't go back to a levelled zone structure if it was an option, but there are definitely flaws with 1T as well, the most obvious being that overland is scaled to a difficulty level based on the newest players.

I means, it's in the quote too.

Online, and a large portion of them find the game hard and the Overland content challenging, especially as a new player when you don't have gold, all the gear, and Champion Points.

They have to balance the entire game around the weakest players with the least amount of knowledge. This is the great flaw of 1T. They don't want new players to play a game which has no vets around. They don't want the new player experience to feel empty or too difficult, the first 2 hours of play time really really matter.

CP5

mocap wrote: »

Thats how almost all single player games solve difficulty. Increase enemy damage, reduce player damage. We're not talking about chess, where can indeed be different levels of AI. Here everything is much simpler.

More damage to enemies means that you actually start healing yourself during quests. Less player damage means that bosses will finaly be able to finish their bravado speech (lol).

While that's the easiest way to solve things, it is also the weakest. I would normally mod Oblivion and Skyrim to raise the difficulty outside of making enemies into sponges, but guess what, ESO is capable of doing this. Pretty much every single hard mode in dungeons and trials adds more systems to juggle during fights, either by adding new threats to the situation or giving the enemies more impactful abilities. I've mentioned Lord Warden in the past because his meteor will always one shot players on vet, but never do more than 95% of a players health on normal.

Just think of how many enemies take ages to get off a single attack. They die before they can even begin their attack, so what if I dealt a tenth of my current damage to this enemy? Oh wow, they may get off a single attack. Remember that video where an elite enemy took minutes to kill an afk player? How drastic of a damage ratio would be needed to make the fights anywhere near impactful? Or, using the same tech ZOS already has to differentiate between normal and vet dungeons, you give them a slight stat bonus, but more importantly you replace worthless skills with ones that matter.

Replace the archer taking aim with the arrow barrage seen on the goblins in frost vault.
Replace the bubble blowers bubble with literally anything else.
Replace the npc healer skill with one that actually heals.
Replace the npc tank ability to leap from the battle, abandoning their allies, with nothing.
Replace the necromancer skills that summon one undead with one that summons more than one.

Bosses would need a health amount of additional stats, particularly stuff like armor, but for most mobs making them into tedious sponges reminds me of reviews of "The Division" where some bosses would take exceedingly long to kill while standing around doing nothing. That's not engaging, not a good solution, and won't solve the problem, just like self nerfing through using poor gear doesn't.

Also as another example, another game I've sunk a fair bit of time into is Risk of Rain 2. I've mentioned it before, detailing how their combat system is engaging, but I'll try to be brief and summarize it here again. A majority of the enemies in that game are exceptionally simple. You have frail and slow wisp that have an attack that is hard to avoid, and golems which are durable and slow with two different heavy hitting attacks that are both much easier to avoid. These are two enemies that spawn from the very beginning of the game and are simple threats to deal with.

But then you begin throwing other modifiers into the fight, like if any enemy can slow you down, that passively increases the power of the golems because they're more likely to hit you. The game also has one shot protection, preventing a single blow from taking you out from full health, but if there is a swarm of wisps ready to fire if you take a heavy attack they all of a sudden become a higher threat than the heavy hitting but easy to avoid enemies. For those situations, putting simple enemies into situations where their effectiveness and impact on the fight varies keeps me engaged because I have to keep re-evaluating the situation and working around many dynamics variables.

But then you have elite modifiers, where any enemy can be spawned in with special elemental buffs. Like a golem that is empowered by fire, so if they hit you they leave a high damage burn dot on you that can bypass the one shot protection, or ice empowered wisp that can reliably root you in place leaving you an easy target. Then you have mending elites who passively heal nearby allies, including bosses, by no small amount. Do you prioritize the big threat, or the tiny wisp who got stuck on the boss trying to float over to you but is healing them?

Those situations require thought, because the enemies have enough presence to matter, and what they do is impactful. I shared the post of how ZOS made NPC menders weaker by requiring their heal to ramp up over time, it's so weak that I doubt many players even notice the healer healing. There was also the patch where they did game wide changes to make tank enemies less durable and dps enemies deal less damage. Because of changes like those all the enemies fall into this one gray sludge, where it doesn't matter who or what you're fighting, simply making those fights take longer is not a solution. Let tank npc's be durable and protect their allies, let mender npcs actually heal enough to make them a priority, let archer enemies apply pressure to force the player to action, let the enemies actually seem like they're trying to fight back.

It is as dull fighting an army of sponges as it is fighting an army of cardboard cutouts.

SilverBride

Tannus15 wrote: »

The point is that @SilverBride is clearly the most ardent supporter of the current status quo so it's interesting and worthwhile to find out what they see as the most acceptable option.

I have stated multiple times that even though I don't see a need for it I fully support debuffs and challenge banners for story bosses in a good faith effort to make the game more enjoyable for those who enjoy more difficulty. I support these because they wouldn't have all the negative effects for the rest of the playerbase that a separate veteran overland would.

I also support difficulty levels for overland instanced content, such as delves and public dungeons.

A separate veteran overland is the only thing I don't support.

CP5

The "negative effects for the rest of the player base" mentality is a bit odd truth be told. If it's an issue of separating players, overland instances already do this, the players who would engage with this aren't participating in the current overland if they're in game at all, so the players who wouldn't touch it would likely notice no difference. If it's about rewards, then what personal issue is there for someone getting more exp for more effort, or less but higher quality items over the same span of time as someone else? And if it's an issue of putting resources to this instead of something else, see companions and the card game as examples of niche player groups getting time invested to them.

That mentality I don't feel counters anything while also standing against ZOS easiest option to address this issue, using tech they already use everywhere to do something they already do most everywhere.

spartaxoxo

Many of the players that are interested in vet overland ARE playing current overland. It is by far the most used content in this game. Most groups play it.

And those players DO help with stuff in regular overland.

It literally happens all the time.

Overland does not separate people into different instances unless an instance is too full. Players are generally always playing with other people on the map. ZOS set things up to make sure that there are enough players in a zone to meet each other and receive help and separate settings are a detriment to that. Because they cannot be combined when a zone has a low pop. And there are absolutely low population zones in this game.

The developers themselves have brought this up as an objective hurdle.

It doesn't mean they can't do it. But, all ideas have upsides and downsides. And this issue is a downside to a separate instance.

amonengelb16_ESO

Me and my friends were fond of the hardmode scroll for example. You had to interact with your character instead of swipings through the user interface etc. Working with things we've seen would be a cool start – As making more use of campaign/instance-functions for solo and public dungeons, main quests etc. I mean, we already have different campaigns for Cyrodiil. And I think a lot of PvE players would like to experience the zone without disturbance too. Which would work good along the Firesong story progression.

I liked the fight against the Hidden Lord in Firesong. ZoS really made the fight more dynamic and lively. Whereas fighting Molag Bal or even Nocturnal (which is lorewise more dangerous) seem incredibly stale and underwhelming. Nocturnal looks really cool and that (!) but I think even ZoS made a learning process along the DLCs and Chapters. And I mean, it wouldn't feel wrong to me, if you'd see such a scroll lying before the boss room, have more options to enter dungeons on the overland e.g., you could process however you want and play how you want.

Elsonso

Tannus15 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Debuffs are the most that will happen if anything changes at all. They are not likely to redo all the overland mobs to have what some consider engaging mechanics. That would be a major change and Rich Lambert already stated that there are no major changes planned for overland difficulty.

This one actually isn't true. Several times in the past they have changed mob behaviour game wide, the one I remember most was trolls, because it broke the troll boss in vSO.

All of the mobs in ESO are, per their comments, hand edited. So, someone went through and manually broke the troll in vSO. Now, scale up "just trolls" to "every mob" and think about how this is going to go, and how much effort it is going to take. It is vastly easier to nerf the player than buff thousands of mobs.

ZOS has not edited mobs on this scale since One Tamriel came out. I would be surprised if they ever did it again.

SilverBride wrote: »

A separate veteran overland is the only thing I don't support.

Same here. Consider separate zones to be a monumentally flawed idea for a game as long in the tooth as this one. Very expensive, potential maintenance nightmare, needs to generate lots of revenue to recover the cost, so very risky. I have been wrong before, but I think that this is one they will not do, so I don't think it is ever going to be more than a debate in here.

Either way, ZOS has stated specific down sides to solutions that we have presented, so if they do this, I think it is going to hurt somewhere. The question is whether they are wise enough to pick one that has the largest upside to counter the losses, or come up with something that no one here has considered that has no losses. I don't think they optimized that decision with AwA along these lines, so not really looking forward to their solution, should they go this direction.

TaSheen

Bottom line for me: I expect that if ZOS decides to implement some iteration of "veteran overland" -

No one will be happy.

Not an outcome I'm going to be thrilled with. I remind you all again: ZOS doens't do "optional" well. Or actually at all.

spartaxoxo

TaSheen wrote: »

I remind you all again: ZOS doens't do "optional" well. Or actually at all.

They do it pretty well with endeavors and group content, IMO. They don't have a lot of options in overland, but other aspects of the game I think handle it well.

Somber97866

If you want more of a challenge overland take all your cp out, take all your purple gold gear off and play with your friend with the gear you find available. Also try making a new character with your friend and not use your cp or crafting skills and only use the gear you find while adventuring.
Let's talk about making world bosses ( including dragons)more challenging and give them a drop that keeps players coming back for more. Better drops from them and especially dragons are much needed.
Perfect roe drop rates and housing materials ( especially the wood and stone) need some serious help here! Their prices are ridiculous and they are needed more than the other items. Plus platings! Good God that's a headache.
Fishing could use some serious love. Simpleton exercise tbh. For nonexistent perfect roe

Somber97866

Oh and you need to hire the guys in the the comment before this one. And actually listen to them. Pretty dead on tbh

CP5

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Many of the players that are interested in vet overland ARE playing current overland. It is by far the most used content in this game. Most groups play it.

And those players DO help with stuff in regular overland.

It literally happens all the time.

Overland does not separate people into different instances unless an instance is too full. Players are generally always playing with other people on the map. ZOS set things up to make sure that there are enough players in a zone to meet each other and receive help and separate settings are a detriment to that. Because they cannot be combined when a zone has a low pop. And there are absolutely low population zones in this game.

The developers themselves have brought this up as an objective hurdle.

It doesn't mean they can't do it. But, all ideas have upsides and downsides. And this issue is a downside to a separate instance.

And how many only log in and stand at a bank until their group forms, or they pass the pvp queue? How many don't log in anymore because those groups disbanded? Your concern about those low pop zones, how many players who are even there are actively engaging with the content? Some sure, but plenty go there just for skyshards, or antiquities, someone blitzing through the zone to get something quick or standing afk at the bank is not participating in the zone, so what does it matter if they are there or not?

And what if, to throw mock numbers at it, dead zone has 10 people, dead zone with normal and vet options has 4 people in dead zone and 4 on vet one, maybe more because people would actually go back to participate in content they previously skipped, is it better to have more people actually engaging with the content, or the hope that the people in the instance are interacting. More players with a similar mindset in the same area will be more likely to interact, and the current vet players who may be participating in those zones may well be interacting with no one.

I feel it is better to give players an option to have meaningful engagement where they would otherwise not be engaging or not even be touching the game at all.

Somber97866 wrote: »

If you want more of a challenge overland take all your cp out, take all your purple gold gear off and play with your friend with the gear you find available. Also try making a new character with your friend and not use your cp or crafting skills and only use the gear you find while adventuring.
-

And chug ravage health potions on cooldown, stand still in red aoe's, play the game blindfolded, and other overly dramatic ideas. Those don't solve the issue, deliberately going out of our way to self sabotage is something we already have access to, but knowing how to play the game is advantage enough despite these 'challenges,' at that point a lobotomy would be the best solution, so you would have to re-learn the game, and as much as I would enjoy giving that path another go it is gone, I know how the game works, I know what ZOS is capable of providing, I understand and enjoy the gameplay of the game, and I'm not going to ruin my gameplay experience by trying to ram a square peg into a round hole to make it more challenging.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

And how many only log in and stand at a bank until their group forms, or they pass the pvp queue?

People who aren't engaging with the zone's content, it doesn't matter if they leave the zone. If they aren't playing it, it's obviously okay if they go to a different town or a dungeon or whatever.

It does matter if people who are engaging in the game leave the zone. There are many vet players engaging with the zones. Most players engage with the zones. It is by far the most used mode in the game, according to the developers. Many vet players will do things like pickup a daily quest to kill a boss, take a quick glance at zone chat and assist in a call out, or run their alt through the content for skill points, skyshards, etc. The intermingling of players is an important part of MMOs.

CP5

It would be a choice to engage with the content, and if players are content with what there is now but would prefer the alternative and would take it, could you say it's selfish to say "You shouldn't get an option you prefer, it is better you are here to act as entertainment for these other players"? If a zone is so dead that this would so heavily cripple that zones ability to function, then it is a core issue with the zone that needs to be fixed, not a reason to lock everyone in the same box to say it's full enough.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

It would be a choice to engage with the content, and if players are content with what there is now but would prefer the alternative and would take it, could you say it's selfish to say "You shouldn't get an option you prefer, it is better you are here to act as entertainment for these other players"? If a zone is so dead that this would so heavily cripple that zones ability to function, then it is a core issue with the zone that needs to be fixed, not a reason to lock everyone in the same box to say it's full enough.

I don't view it as selfish, but as practical about the needs of the game. I don't see it as different to the game needing content that not everyone can do or will enjoy because it's too difficult. I think this game needs content everyone meets up with each other more than most as the PUG scene for group content is in bad shape.

So, in my opinion, they need to ensure that whatever option they take doesn't run off casual and especially new players. If they were to introduce a separate instances, I'd hope they'd take this downside into consideration and work to alleviate it rather than ignore it.

A player months ago had one idea for mitigating it that I really liked, which was to have the zone chat overlap between the instances so that someone in normal could still get help from someone in vet. I don't know that it's feasible, but that's the kind of brainstorming I would hope they do to mitigate this downside.

CP5

That would be a nice inclusion, though I honestly think newer players are the least likely to notice those around them, except people about as new as they are or vet players carving past everything. Though there is something to be said for putting players with similar interest together, so vet players being able to band together against challenging content like the old gold and silver dolmens, as well as helping prevent newer players from experiencing the enjoyable "high leveled player killed everything on this quest path" which I actively tried to avoid doing whenever questing. There are some negatives by keeping people who are itching for more in the same area as those trying to learn, see normal dungeons for more examples of that.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

That would be a nice inclusion, though I honestly think newer players are the least likely to notice those around them, except people about as new as they are or vet players carving past everything.

On the contrary, I think new players notice it more than anyone else. When I join a new multiplayer game, I pay way more attention to whether or not I believe the game to have a healthy population. I don't want to get invested into a dead game. Whereas if I like a game enough because I have played it so long, I will be there for the sunset of that game, toasting it one last time before the servers go off for good. I have been in that exact situation.

Beyond that, a new player is also more likely to need help as they don't have the gameplay knowledge a vet has. What may be completely trivial for a vet player can be a challenge that requires assistance and explanation from a more seasoned player for a new player.

I think this is why "player blows up mobs I was struggling with" is more likely to be an immersion breaking experience for a new player than a vet, despite the fact they are both experiencing literally the exact same thing. Which is why I listed "less immersive" as a downside to debuffs back when I made my pros and cons list. Although, immersion is of course completely subjective.

I think that whatever decision the developers make, I hope they take into account the pros and cons of that idea and work to mitigate the cons. I would hope that they realize that doing something is worth it too. Personally, I hope they work on a debuff slider ala LOTRO, but whatever they decide I hope it's implemented well.

CP5

I agree, though my point on the 'player blows up mobs' was when a player is trying to do a quest, or do a delve for the first time, and everything ahead is killed, forcing them to either experience the vast empty that was carved for them, or they sit around waiting for something to respawn. Not a particularly engaging experience, and one that's hard to not do if you're an experienced player trying to get to a location and your path just happens upon someone else's. Just a point about the benefits of allowing instances to be curated to players with similar goals. But in short, yes, I agree.

zaria

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think playing the game's story "as is" is already pretty immersive, if you're someone who can enjoy walking sims. Whenever I am in the mood for that kind of relaxing gameplay, the overland quest doesn't disappoint. The story is engaging, entertaining, and well-written. But, you have to be in the mood for a walking sim like experience.
ETA
As noted by others, the game doesn't feel as much as an action RPG when the combat ends so quickly.

One thing I learned in Fallout 3 and then used in Oblivion, Skyrim, FO:NV and fallout 4 was the low health high damage play.
I kept my health pretty low, used an high damage setup and set difficulty to hard. This made enemies dangerous but not very hard to kill unless elite stuff.
This worked well for me and how I like to play.
And it don't work for ESO. I just finished Cadvvel gold for the second time, first was after launch.
So many good quests and I did it slower talked to all the named npc and read related documents.
Standard mobs, I don't care, don't want them to be hard to kill as it slows me down, bosses however need an buff.
Its pathetic that the boss at the end of an long quest has the same health as an troll.
Wait was that the boss I just killed? Quest updated.
This has improved and something I want an toggle for.
On the other hand getting request for help from lvl 16 players in Craglorn group delves because they followed the quests and then aimed for the closest target starting to get old.
And they are not the legendary idiots you can run into in RND who LA with resto staff with all points into health and heavy armor

BretonMage

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think this is why "player blows up mobs I was struggling with" is more likely to be an immersion breaking experience for a new player than a vet, despite the fact they are both experiencing literally the exact same thing. Which is why I listed "less immersive" as a downside to debuffs back when I made my pros and cons list. Although, immersion is of course completely subjective.

New players are probably used to higher level players obliterating everything anyway, and having debuffs for high levels, or alternatively, buffs for lowbies, might even out the experience a little.

I've been thinking about this option (buffs/debuffs), and to be honest, I think it's probably the best option (reversing my early opinion). Like others in the thread, I would not like the players to be divided, having a busy, populated game adds a lot to the atmosphere, even if some might be there reluctantly (sorry, vets).

Tannus15

A decent middle ground would be a difficulty setting for delves / public dungeons / instanced content.

Somber97866 wrote: »

If you want more of a challenge overland take all your cp out, take all your purple gold gear off and play with your friend with the gear you find available.

I did this. I crafted 2 sets of all green quality gear, green enchants. took out my cp. spread my attributes evenly, only trash pots. without using my ult a delve boss lasted 9 seconds and did no damage.
it was still trivial.

as I pointed out elsewhere, part of the fun of the game is getting better gear and getting stronger.

here, this should be a decent demonstration of what i'm talking about

delve boss fight


Literally no gear, no attributes, no food, no cp. TRIVIAL


What more are we supposed to do???

Tannus15

Oh wait, I still had a useful mundas. I can't get rid of it, I guess i can use something pointless like the steed, mind you the extra health regen would probably out heal the damage the boss can do.

vsrs_au

A reddit thread I just checked said you can right-click the mundus buff in the Character window and just remove it. I haven't tried it myself, though.

Tannus15

vsrs_au wrote: »

A reddit thread I just checked said you can right-click the mundus buff in the Character window and just remove it. I haven't tried it myself, though.

doesn't work. the only way to remove a mundus is via the armory.

colossalvoids

Strangely enough it was still working like a year or so ago, didn't bothered to do so recently.

Tannus15

so, i'm getting a little stuck in the weeds on this whole "doing things with nothing equipped" and i thought that maybe DLC delves would be more difficult than a base game delve.
So here is one, Whalefall in High Isle:



as you can see, he has twice the health as the auridon boss. I also remembered to change my mundus to the steed so that i'm literally the worst i can possibly be at the combat.

i DID use my ult on this guy and punched him a bunch with my mighty crystal fists.

Tannus15

so the point here is that ZoS have at least acknowledged the issue in so far as the most recent content is at least twice as difficult as the base game.

it's still not particularly hard, but it took almost a minute to defeat the delve boss with no gear, attributes, mundus or food. he did some damage to me, and i had some resource issues.

i imagine some basic level of gear would pretty drastically shift things in my favour, but it is what it is.

Tannus15

In case it's not obvious, once i get an idea in my head i have a hard time letting it go.
so here is the last data point in "Tannus thinks overland is too easy"

Killing the whalefall delve boss with good gear, what i would consider a "proper" setup



yup, 5 seconds



so that was fun.
ok, i lied. it wasn't fun. i deleted him. Poor Mannick.

This isn't some weird flex "ooo, look how special i am, i can kill a delve boss!"
I'm trying to demonstrate what playing overland is like at end game.

It sucks.
It's really bad.
trash dies in 2 hits, bosses die in 4 or 5. they may as well not exist. Every quest is the same, it's literally just run over here, run over there with no actual gameplay involved.
Way point, way point, way point, hand in quest.

Honestly the most fun i had was the no gear, no cp, no attributes, no mundus, no food setup because at least i was playing the game again. But that sucks too because the entire build, gear, improvement thing is killed in sacrifice of trying desperately to make the game fun.

Aardappelboom

Tannus15 wrote: »

In case it's not obvious, once i get an idea in my head i have a hard time letting it go.
so here is the last data point in "Tannus thinks overland is too easy"

Killing the whalefall delve boss with good gear, what i would consider a "proper" setup



yup, 5 seconds



so that was fun.
ok, i lied. it wasn't fun. i deleted him. Poor Mannick.

This isn't some weird flex "ooo, look how special i am, i can kill a delve boss!"
I'm trying to demonstrate what playing overland is like at end game.

It sucks.
It's really bad.
trash dies in 2 hits, bosses die in 4 or 5. they may as well not exist. Every quest is the same, it's literally just run over here, run over there with no actual gameplay involved.
Way point, way point, way point, hand in quest.

Honestly the most fun i had was the no gear, no cp, no attributes, no mundus, no food setup because at least i was playing the game again. But that sucks too because the entire build, gear, improvement thing is killed in sacrifice of trying desperately to make the game fun.

Good post, I'm in the same boat. I did the entire "strip-my-char" (to the extreme of even equiping lvl 1 gear) and while that was fun it misses a lot of the fun I have with tuning a build and trying to defeat that one boss.

The best PVE experience I've had with this game is doing dungeons solo, the stories are great but the combat is fun as well, you have to do things to survive and if you don't manage you can tweak your character a bit to see what works, it's a lot of fun and I agree that overland should have these kind of challenges for someone who has been playing for a while.

Obviously with the possibility to optionally tune difficulty down if you still want the story experience. Overland is essentialy still a single player experience so treating it like one would only benefit the game.