Overland Content Feedback Thread

Jammy420

Malthorne wrote: »

Necrom looks really cool aesthetically and the story sounds very interesting. However, it is hard to be excited for a “world ending” threat when every single boss is going to be defeated with a few swings of my hammer.

World ending boss....except for you, the player character. We can take em out in seconds xD

Elsonso

Jammy420 wrote: »

Malthorne wrote: »

Necrom looks really cool aesthetically and the story sounds very interesting. However, it is hard to be excited for a “world ending” threat when every single boss is going to be defeated with a few swings of my hammer.

World ending boss....except for you, the player character. We can take em out in seconds xD

ZOS should introduce the Chapter where the player is the world ending crisis...

CP5

Would love to see a battle hardened Stuga hunt you down as the final boss. "Do you know how long I've been looking for you..?"

SilverBride

Jammy420 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

Don't loose hope friends, 2024 will be our year, keep fighting the good fight! They may deny it but we know that the most requested feature is the one and only feature that has a dedicated sticky in these forums!

This thread was created to address a problem with multiple threads popping up every week that was creating a negative experience for a lot of forum users.

I mean, the forums are there to bring up things we observe and like / dislike, and to discuss. Since one tamriel, the constant dumbing down of overland content has been a glaring issue. So no, its not just because the many threads. It is by far the most asked for feature at this point.

It actually was because of the multiple threads, as is stated in the opening post. They pinned this one to keep the discussion in one place.

That doesn't mean they aren't noting the feedback given and taking it into consideration, but the fact that this thread was pinned doesn't mean it is the most requested feature.

I believe these new continuous dungeons may bring more challenging content to the game because they will most likely have difficulty levels. This could be an alternate way to level for those who don't enjoy the current questing experience in overland.

CP5

It won't resolve the issue of wanting to explore the world, but I was planning on trying that to level one of the new characters I'll be making once the chapter goes live.

SilverBride

I wish they would have implemented difficulty levels for Delves and Public Dungeons, but these continuous dungeons sound interesting.

colossalvoids

New dungeon might turn out interesting, can't have any opinion without seeing even a draft, my only hope it's not just rewards driven but have good gameplay loop to play it for the experience rather than to grind for xyz. Still won't do anything for me in experiencing new chapter story though, or any of them.

Potentially it can give enough play time to not care about game's issues, so here's that.

SilverBride

I wonder if the new continuous dungeons will connect to the zones and the story. I can't wait to hear more about them.

Mitheral

I love he story And the game looks good and plays well HOWEVER it is way to easy...if i could Adjust The difficulty tto MuchMuch harder solo...id play his game much more...i geta month get To nodding off and Lose interest and leave for a few months then ttry again.Why is Solo so freaking easy?Yawn i guess its not my cup of tea... its bettter than reading a book on sword fighting.

Jammy420

SilverBride wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

Don't loose hope friends, 2024 will be our year, keep fighting the good fight! They may deny it but we know that the most requested feature is the one and only feature that has a dedicated sticky in these forums!

This thread was created to address a problem with multiple threads popping up every week that was creating a negative experience for a lot of forum users.

I mean, the forums are there to bring up things we observe and like / dislike, and to discuss. Since one tamriel, the constant dumbing down of overland content has been a glaring issue. So no, its not just because the many threads. It is by far the most asked for feature at this point.

It actually was because of the multiple threads, as is stated in the opening post. They pinned this one to keep the discussion in one place.

That doesn't mean they aren't noting the feedback given and taking it into consideration, but the fact that this thread was pinned doesn't mean it is the most requested feature.

I believe these new continuous dungeons may bring more challenging content to the game because they will most likely have difficulty levels. This could be an alternate way to level for those who don't enjoy the current questing experience in overland.

I really dont know if you are just wilfully ignoring the posts over the last 5 years, or if you genuinely didnt see them. There have been posts about this since before morrowind. It has always been the most common thread and complaint, along with performance.

SilverBride

Jammy420 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

It actually was because of the multiple threads, as is stated in the opening post. They pinned this one to keep the discussion in one place.

That doesn't mean they aren't noting the feedback given and taking it into consideration, but the fact that this thread was pinned doesn't mean it is the most requested feature.

I believe these new continuous dungeons may bring more challenging content to the game because they will most likely have difficulty levels. This could be an alternate way to level for those who don't enjoy the current questing experience in overland.

I really dont know if you are just wilfully ignoring the posts over the last 5 years, or if you genuinely didnt see them. There have been posts about this since before morrowind. It has always been the most common thread and complaint, along with performance.

I saw threads starting mostly by the same handful of posters, quickly devolving and being locked, only to be replaced by another. This happened weekly and created a negative forum experience for many posters.

This does not make it the most requested feature.

[Edited to clarify]

Dojohoda

Overland is a work of art but, I enjoyed it less after one tamriel and perhaps because 1-tam made it much easier to fight enemies.

On the topic of it being too easy, I have a couple of suggestions.

Add slotable CP stars that allow us to be weakened when we want to be.

Consider allowing an option for delves to be an instance so we overpowered players don't spoil it for the new players.

Tornaad

SilverBride wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

It actually was because of the multiple threads, as is stated in the opening post. They pinned this one to keep the discussion in one place.

That doesn't mean they aren't noting the feedback given and taking it into consideration, but the fact that this thread was pinned doesn't mean it is the most requested feature.

I believe these new continuous dungeons may bring more challenging content to the game because they will most likely have difficulty levels. This could be an alternate way to level for those who don't enjoy the current questing experience in overland.

I really dont know if you are just wilfully ignoring the posts over the last 5 years, or if you genuinely didnt see them. There have been posts about this since before morrowind. It has always been the most common thread and complaint, along with performance.

I saw threads starting mostly by the same handful of posters, quickly devolving and being locked, only to be replaced by another. This happened weekly and created a negative forum experience for many posters.

This does not make it the most requested feature.

[Edited to clarify]

While I would love to see an optional increased overland difficulty, and can very much see it adding to the long term appeal of the game, I also realize that it is not the most requested feature.
It is certainly the most debated feature, but I don't think it is anywhere near the most requested.
I think the whole reason this now massive thread got created was because of the strong feelings on both sides.

If we get harder overland difficulty, then I would want it implemented as follows.

The game already has many instances that exist, and I would want to take advantage of that to implement harder overland.

They would just establish a few dedicated instances for the different difficulty settings and when you change difficulty settings you load into a different instance.

Unless harder overland difficulty is enabled in such a way that it does not force harder difficulty on those who don't want it, then I do not want it enabled.

Jammy420

Tornaad wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

It actually was because of the multiple threads, as is stated in the opening post. They pinned this one to keep the discussion in one place.

That doesn't mean they aren't noting the feedback given and taking it into consideration, but the fact that this thread was pinned doesn't mean it is the most requested feature.

I believe these new continuous dungeons may bring more challenging content to the game because they will most likely have difficulty levels. This could be an alternate way to level for those who don't enjoy the current questing experience in overland.

I really dont know if you are just wilfully ignoring the posts over the last 5 years, or if you genuinely didnt see them. There have been posts about this since before morrowind. It has always been the most common thread and complaint, along with performance.

I saw threads starting mostly by the same handful of posters, quickly devolving and being locked, only to be replaced by another. This happened weekly and created a negative forum experience for many posters.

This does not make it the most requested feature.

[Edited to clarify]

While I would love to see an optional increased overland difficulty, and can very much see it adding to the long term appeal of the game, I also realize that it is not the most requested feature.
It is certainly the most debated feature, but I don't think it is anywhere near the most requested.
I think the whole reason this now massive thread got created was because of the strong feelings on both sides.

If we get harder overland difficulty, then I would want it implemented as follows.

The game already has many instances that exist, and I would want to take advantage of that to implement harder overland.

They would just establish a few dedicated instances for the different difficulty settings and when you change difficulty settings you load into a different instance.

Unless harder overland difficulty is enabled in such a way that it does not force harder difficulty on those who don't want it, then I do not want it enabled.

This mirrors what I have been saying since forever. But even that gets shot down for some reason.

Tornaad

Jammy420 wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

It actually was because of the multiple threads, as is stated in the opening post. They pinned this one to keep the discussion in one place.

That doesn't mean they aren't noting the feedback given and taking it into consideration, but the fact that this thread was pinned doesn't mean it is the most requested feature.

I believe these new continuous dungeons may bring more challenging content to the game because they will most likely have difficulty levels. This could be an alternate way to level for those who don't enjoy the current questing experience in overland.

I really dont know if you are just wilfully ignoring the posts over the last 5 years, or if you genuinely didnt see them. There have been posts about this since before morrowind. It has always been the most common thread and complaint, along with performance.

I saw threads starting mostly by the same handful of posters, quickly devolving and being locked, only to be replaced by another. This happened weekly and created a negative forum experience for many posters.

This does not make it the most requested feature.

[Edited to clarify]

While I would love to see an optional increased overland difficulty, and can very much see it adding to the long term appeal of the game, I also realize that it is not the most requested feature.
It is certainly the most debated feature, but I don't think it is anywhere near the most requested.
I think the whole reason this now massive thread got created was because of the strong feelings on both sides.

If we get harder overland difficulty, then I would want it implemented as follows.

The game already has many instances that exist, and I would want to take advantage of that to implement harder overland.

They would just establish a few dedicated instances for the different difficulty settings and when you change difficulty settings you load into a different instance.

Unless harder overland difficulty is enabled in such a way that it does not force harder difficulty on those who don't want it, then I do not want it enabled.

This mirrors what I have been saying since forever. But even that gets shot down for some reason.

At least I'm not alone in my confusion then. That's good to know.

CP5

It is true that they have the infrastructure already in place to do this exact thing, that they already use it to do this exact thing, and have previously had it implemented as such in overland, and still use that tech in overland even if all instances of a single zone are currently the same. Making the optional instance wouldn't be the time intensive part I feel, but going through the enemies to modify them accordingly, but since they mass modified enemies on multiple occasions, most recently the enemies in vet dungeons/trials, I don't think that is beyond reason.

Elsonso

CP5 wrote: »

It is true that they have the infrastructure already in place to do this exact thing, that they already use it to do this exact thing, and have previously had it implemented as such in overland, and still use that tech in overland even if all instances of a single zone are currently the same. Making the optional instance wouldn't be the time intensive part I feel, but going through the enemies to modify them accordingly, but since they mass modified enemies on multiple occasions, most recently the enemies in vet dungeons/trials, I don't think that is beyond reason.

They have stated, relative to this conversation, that they cannot "mass modify enemies" in this manner and achieve the end that is being asked for here.

But even if they do as you suggest, it doubles their maintenance burden. Creating the 40+ veteran zones is one thing. Maintaining those zones for the remainder of the life of the game is quite another. Every time they go into a map to add, move, or modify something, they will probably have to do it twice. This game is "hand tuned", so if they create automation to do that work for them, then they have to maintain the automation that does that work and check it each time it is used.

Given where we are, today... Doubling the size of their overland maintenance burden seems very... irresponsible... to me.

CP5

Sever burden is based on number of instances, not how they're varied. If that were the case then all request for solo/story mode dungeons would be shot down because "think of all the new instances with all this new server load." If you have 10 dungeon instances, 5 can be normal and 5 can be vet, or all 10 normal or all 10 vet, the server only cares when the instance is being made, and if a particular instance has something more demanding in it, like if a vet instance had a very script heavy fight the normal one wouldn't.

And aside from their major adjustment to vet difficulty enemy health bars recently, patch 4.0.5 saw the removal of enemy weaknesses and resistances to elements, 2.1.4 saw the majority of mobs that you find throughout the world by making tanky mobs less tanky/more damaging and other mobs more durable but less damaging. Wide scale modifications are well within their capacity. As far as 'hand tuned,' you make a template npc, give them some stats, then throw spawn points into the world. Every enemy spawned from those points is based off that template. Make a new instance rule set, which isn't something that is always demanding the resources for a zone be doubles, then make a modified template or provide various 'buffs' to the template to modify its stats and skills. This is exactly how the old bronze/silver/gold zones worked, each version had a rule set as to which level mobs to spawn and tweaked those. ZOS didn't have to handcraft the spawns and level ranges of each individual mudcrab to do this.

Tornaad

CP5 wrote: »

It is true that they have the infrastructure already in place to do this exact thing, that they already use it to do this exact thing, and have previously had it implemented as such in overland, and still use that tech in overland even if all instances of a single zone are currently the same. Making the optional instance wouldn't be the time intensive part I feel, but going through the enemies to modify them accordingly, but since they mass modified enemies on multiple occasions, most recently the enemies in vet dungeons/trials, I don't think that is beyond reason.

They do have a lot of the infrastructure in place. Whether it would be intensive or not depends on what options they have to increase the difficulty with, and how those options align with the goal of increasing difficulty. I think that one of the bigger challenges would be trying to find a way to make the difficulty harder that would be possible, have the lowest labor intensity, and be acceptable by the veteran community.

One challenge I can specifically think of is that to just increase HP and damage for many, would not feel like a harder difficulty. For me, I think that would. Many would want challenging mechanics added in as well. And the reality is that you are not likely going to be able to make everyone happy. Can you find something that would make 90% happy? I think so.

One possibility, (assuming this is at all possible) would be as follows.

Generically increase the HP and damage of all overland monsters, and add a few special attacks or mechanics to just the bosses and those monsters that are supposed to be harder in the first place. From there, while you will still have your trash mobs, there would hopefully be enough flair of difference to make it feel compelling. And hopefully (assuming you can just generically increase the HP and damage of the mobs) something like that would find the needed happy balance between cost to implement (including time, hours, and money) and the goal that many are wanting to see achieved. From there, they would just need to attach the different difficulties to a specific instance and impliment the ability to change difficulty settings.

One question that would need to be addressed is how would things like the zone chat work. Would they have multiple different zone chats for each difficulty or would they have just one? How would each implementation affect the user base? If they left them separate would the zones seem too empty? And on that note, how would implementing varying difficulties affect the perception of increasing or decreasing population and how would that affect player perceptions of the game? And could they combine the various instance zone chats to offset any potential negative view of the population density changing as result of implementing the harder difficulty instances?

Really, the list of questions to ask is almost endless. However, we simply do no have enough information to answer most of them. All we can do, is venture an opinion on what we would and would not like. From there, it would be up to the developers to answer the rest of the questions.

CP5

It'd be a separate instance using what they already have in place, just like any currently well populated zone already has. But beyond that, as I had mentioned throughout the months and the threads that came before this one, many enemies have skills I think of as fireworks, all visual no impact. Things like archers 'taking aim' for 10 seconds, tanks leaping from the battle leaving their allies to die, and that video of the elite mob a little while back taking minutes to kill an afk player because so many of their attacks just amount to nothing. Mobs would need some more stats to stand on, but primarily the thing that would make things more engaging is enemies being able to stand apart from each other, standing against ZOS's 2.1.4 changes, and replacing their worthless skills with ones that are impactful.

So in the end, the way I see it being most effective and easiest for ZOS to implement. Adding an option to opt into an optional instance type, in which enemies are either using a modified template or given a buff (a common method seen in TES mods to mass modify entities) to give them enough stats to be impactful but mostly to take their time-wasting abilities and make them use something meaningful instead.

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

It'd be a separate instance using what they already have in place, just like any currently well populated zone already has.

But it wouldn't. The current instances that are created to handle the amount of players in the zone at the time all have the same exact mobs at the same difficulty.

Veteran instances with harder mobs with different mechanics would have to be created and maintained.

CP5

When an instance is created, it refers to a list of things that particular instance needs to create it. You have fixed instances like Cyrodiil where each instance is fixed, with a clearly defined ruleset and the inability to generate additional instances to support particularly high populations, with more instances needing to be made manually, but that's the only place in game where that's needed.

But, have you tried housing? Each player in the game can own a copy of each house in the game. How many 'instances' is that? Each one with potentially hundreds of items with different locations and activation states, a unique list of information regarding the owner, the editing permissions of others, wouldn't you think if adding an optional ruleset instances were generated off of would melt the server, wouldn't adding a single house be enough?

When an instance is initialized, that is when the server would need to refer to these unique lists, like when a group of players starts up a dungeon, but once it's created it would require nearly the same amount of resources as any other type of the same instance. Something like the different game modes for battlegrounds may differ more heavily, since some game modes likely require more scripts and networked data, but overall not enough to justify not having them. Because you know what else would increase server strain? Having more players online, and I don't think anyone at ZOS is thinking "we could improve server performance by driving away people."

All versions of a current zones instances "all having the same exact mobs at the same difficulty" doesn't matter, go to a dozen different players homes of the same house, each uniquely furnished, and realize the game doesn't explode when initializing these instances with their different unique settings and assets.

Tornaad

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

It'd be a separate instance using what they already have in place, just like any currently well populated zone already has.

But it wouldn't. The current instances that are created to handle the amount of players in the zone at the time all have the same exact mobs at the same difficulty.

Veteran instances with harder mobs with different mechanics would have to be created and maintained.

That gets into the technical side of things @SilverBride and that is something we do not need to worry about. You could have a Doctorate and Computer Science and still not have enough information to know anything about the technical side of things. All we need to worry about is whether the idea would be acceptable or not. The Developers would worry about the technical side. So, if they were able to create an optional increased difficulty, that had no impact on those that did not want to use it, but would allow those who wanted to use it the option to get harder difficulty levels, would you have a problem with that and if so why?

SilverBride

Tornaad wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

It'd be a separate instance using what they already have in place, just like any currently well populated zone already has.

But it wouldn't. The current instances that are created to handle the amount of players in the zone at the time all have the same exact mobs at the same difficulty.

Veteran instances with harder mobs with different mechanics would have to be created and maintained.

That gets into the technical side of things @SilverBride and that is something we do not need to worry about. You could have a Doctorate and Computer Science and still not have enough information to know anything about the technical side of things. All we need to worry about is whether the idea would be acceptable or not. The Developers would worry about the technical side. So, if they were able to create an optional increased difficulty, that had no impact on those that did not want to use it, but would allow those who wanted to use it the option to get harder difficulty levels, would you have a problem with that and if so why?

I would for many reasons I have already stated. But more importantly, Rich Lambert already made a statement that they have no major changes planned for overland and gave some reasons why.

Rich's Quote on Overland Content
"That's a difficult one because difficulty is definitely subjective. We have millions of players that play The Elder Scrolls 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. Ultimately it comes down to, if we make the game harder, what are the incentives for players to play it at the harder level? That opens up a whole huge can of worms. I also look back and remember we had harder Overland content. 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. So it's a challenging subject and a difficult question to answer. All I can really say is we're definitely looking at it, but we don't have any major changes planned for the Overland difficulty."

CP5

Drawing out the same quote ad infinitum as a 'this should never and will never happen' is simply to disregard anyone who has an opinion different from yours and doesn't elaborate on the topic. This is probably part of the reason why ZOS doesn't want to say anything ever.

Tornaad

SilverBride wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

It'd be a separate instance using what they already have in place, just like any currently well populated zone already has.

But it wouldn't. The current instances that are created to handle the amount of players in the zone at the time all have the same exact mobs at the same difficulty.

Veteran instances with harder mobs with different mechanics would have to be created and maintained.

That gets into the technical side of things @SilverBride and that is something we do not need to worry about. You could have a Doctorate and Computer Science and still not have enough information to know anything about the technical side of things. All we need to worry about is whether the idea would be acceptable or not. The Developers would worry about the technical side. So, if they were able to create an optional increased difficulty, that had no impact on those that did not want to use it, but would allow those who wanted to use it the option to get harder difficulty levels, would you have a problem with that and if so why?

I would for many reasons I have already stated. But more importantly, Rich Lambert already made a statement that they have no major changes planned for overland and gave some reasons why.

Rich's Quote on Overland Content
"That's a difficult one because difficulty is definitely subjective. We have millions of players that play The Elder Scrolls 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. Ultimately it comes down to, if we make the game harder, what are the incentives for players to play it at the harder level? That opens up a whole huge can of worms. I also look back and remember we had harder Overland content. 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. So it's a challenging subject and a difficult question to answer. All I can really say is we're definitely looking at it, but we don't have any major changes planned for the Overland difficulty."

So that is Rich"s reason. What are your reasons?
Additionally that is not talking about the specific idea currently being proposed.

SilverBride

Tornaad wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

It'd be a separate instance using what they already have in place, just like any currently well populated zone already has.

But it wouldn't. The current instances that are created to handle the amount of players in the zone at the time all have the same exact mobs at the same difficulty.

Veteran instances with harder mobs with different mechanics would have to be created and maintained.

That gets into the technical side of things @SilverBride and that is something we do not need to worry about. You could have a Doctorate and Computer Science and still not have enough information to know anything about the technical side of things. All we need to worry about is whether the idea would be acceptable or not. The Developers would worry about the technical side. So, if they were able to create an optional increased difficulty, that had no impact on those that did not want to use it, but would allow those who wanted to use it the option to get harder difficulty levels, would you have a problem with that and if so why?

I would for many reasons I have already stated. But more importantly, Rich Lambert already made a statement that they have no major changes planned for overland and gave some reasons why.

Rich's Quote on Overland Content
"That's a difficult one because difficulty is definitely subjective. We have millions of players that play The Elder Scrolls 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. Ultimately it comes down to, if we make the game harder, what are the incentives for players to play it at the harder level? That opens up a whole huge can of worms. I also look back and remember we had harder Overland content. 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. So it's a challenging subject and a difficult question to answer. All I can really say is we're definitely looking at it, but we don't have any major changes planned for the Overland difficulty."

So that is Rich"s reason. What are your reasons?
Additionally that is not talking about the specific idea currently being proposed.

I already gave my reasons many times, and they still stand.

CP5

I provided counterarguments to them and none of them were responded to. Dividing the community both doesn't make sense as an argument if you think we're too few to matter, and doesn't make sense if there are many of us who would want to take advantage of an option. Better rewards was something I went into higher detail about before, where increased exp from enemies compensates for increased time to kill, and enemies dropping slightly better gear again compensates for increased time to kill, and both are already expressed everywhere else. The arguments to 'go back to your content' doesn't address people who want to explore the world of tamriel because living in a corner killing the same dungeons worth of enemies over and over isn't, again, the world, so many of those points don't stand on anything particularly strong.

Tornaad

SilverBride wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

It'd be a separate instance using what they already have in place, just like any currently well populated zone already has.

But it wouldn't. The current instances that are created to handle the amount of players in the zone at the time all have the same exact mobs at the same difficulty.

Veteran instances with harder mobs with different mechanics would have to be created and maintained.

That gets into the technical side of things @SilverBride and that is something we do not need to worry about. You could have a Doctorate and Computer Science and still not have enough information to know anything about the technical side of things. All we need to worry about is whether the idea would be acceptable or not. The Developers would worry about the technical side. So, if they were able to create an optional increased difficulty, that had no impact on those that did not want to use it, but would allow those who wanted to use it the option to get harder difficulty levels, would you have a problem with that and if so why?

I would for many reasons I have already stated. But more importantly, Rich Lambert already made a statement that they have no major changes planned for overland and gave some reasons why.

Rich's Quote on Overland Content
"That's a difficult one because difficulty is definitely subjective. We have millions of players that play The Elder Scrolls 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. Ultimately it comes down to, if we make the game harder, what are the incentives for players to play it at the harder level? That opens up a whole huge can of worms. I also look back and remember we had harder Overland content. 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. So it's a challenging subject and a difficult question to answer. All I can really say is we're definitely looking at it, but we don't have any major changes planned for the Overland difficulty."

So that is Rich"s reason. What are your reasons?
Additionally that is not talking about the specific idea currently being proposed.

I already gave my reasons many times, and they still stand.

[snip]

Another thing I have to say about the prior implication of harder overland, (from what I can tell) that was the worst implementation of difficulty settings I have ever heard of. The idea that you would need to play through 20 to 30 hours of story content to get the difficulty changed, and then to have it not be very well advertised that it even existed, is terrible implementation. I love Elder Scrolls and ESO is now one of my favorite Elder Scrolls games, but I have to question that idea.

[Edit for Bait.]

TaSheen

Look - could we all just stop attacking each other? I'm fairly sure that some uptick in overland difficulty is going to happen at some point. And I'll figure it out when it happens.

I'm actually happy with overland myself, because mega ping just means it's a lot more difficult already for me, but when it happens I'll deal. Or if it's really a huge problem for me, I'll quit playing and go back to Oblivion and Skyrim. At that point I'd miss ESO, but if I can't handle the harder version, well....