Overland Content Feedback Thread

SilverBride

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Also I just want to point out that once again, I've been through this before as a Lord of the Rings Online player. I was told that I was a vocal minority for years, that it was unnecessary because the playerbase skews towards 'casual' rather than 'hardcore', that it wouldn't change anything because the content would remain the same. The sentiment built up among the playerbase to the point where it couldn't be ignored any longer and landscape difficulty was finally introduced in 2021. It revitalized the whole game for me and it's currently the game I'm playing instead of The Elder Scrolls Online. Resulted in tons of media attention and brought back a lot of people who quit specifically due to a lack of difficulty in the overland content. Regarded as a huge win for the game and is one of the reasons why a nearly sixteen year old game just had it's biggest year since it launched on Steam back in 2010.
https://lotro-wiki.com/index.php/Landscape_Difficulty

Additionally, they released a mini expansion pack in November that contained an alternate level 1-32 experience. I bought it and enjoyed it on legendary servers with the landscape difficulty slider cranked up. It was one of the most enjoyable experiences I've had in MMORPGs in years because there was a real sense of danger and questing actually felt meaningful and rewarding. That's money I guarantee you I wouldn't have spent if not for the landscape difficulty feature.

I looked at the link and they did this with debuffs. Many of us are fine with debuffs here, too, but some have argued against it.

I feel as if your use of language is... odd. "Many of us are fine with debuffs" vs. "some have argued against it". The use of "Many" and "some" make it seem like you're trying to convey that more people are on your side with the term "many", than our side with the term "some". It'd be more practical if you were to use some in both cases as it'd lean towards less bias.

I've only seen a few argue against a debuff. Others, even myself who thinks that overland is fine just as it is, agree with a debuff and sliders for those who want more difficulty.

Some brought up Lord of the Rings online as an acceptable solution, and that was done with debuffs. This indicates that debuffs are acceptable to them.

WiseSky

All this feedback and guess what...

SilverBride

This doesn't mean they aren't considering difficulty options for the future, but the way things are right now this boss needs to be a difficulty most players can succeed at.

spartaxoxo

Elsonso wrote: »

The issue that I think is really driving the idea that overland is too easy is simply that player combat skill can be mastered, thus making the game easier. It isn't that overland is easy, it just stands out because the players have mastered the game. I don't know what ZOS has in mind for that, but "raising the floor" is not the answer.

I was isolating their responses to only what they said about whether not it's the majority who enjoy it or not, rather than discussing vet overland more broadly to address that particular point. I think doing so helps us understand why they haven't given us one yet despite a large amount of social media complaints.

Anyway, that they keep having to address this issue does tell me that the players unhappy aren't a minuscule amount. They are not in the majority but it's enough people to be a pressing enough issue to be something they feel the need to keep addressing.

LOTRO online did what is to me the perfect solution. They introduced a debuff slider. It meant that they didn't need to take on something as massive as redesigning all of their overland. It means they could keep their playerbase together. But, the players who wanted more difficulty for their game got a completely revitalized experience. That game got an immense boost from doing that because it found a way to keep it's core overland design AND give more difficulty to the players who needed it to enjoy the quest.

I don't personally think there's any reason we can't have such a thing here. I personally don't support a separate instance but something like what LOTRO did is not something I just support but something I think is needed for the health of the game. There's a lot of people out there unhappy with the current difficulty.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

A social media poll by a streamer that indicated the majority of those that responded would like to see Overland more difficult

A poll by a streamer is going to be biased, especially if they are streaming veteran end game content. Their viewers are also going to be end game players so there would be little feedback from casual players, if any.

Yes, I agree. As I said in the earlier post, I believe the poll has a sample bias that skews more towards the hardcore and above average skill vet crowd, because as a general rule community managers have stated that social media in general skews that way. I think it's probably the majority of hardcore players feel this way about overland, but not the majority of the overall playerbase.

Elsonso

spartaxoxo wrote: »

LOTRO online did what is to me the perfect solution. They introduced a debuff slider. It meant that they didn't need to take on something as massive as redesigning all of their overland. It means they could keep their playerbase together. But, the players who wanted more difficulty for their game got a completely revitalized experience. That game got an immense boost from doing that because it found a way to keep it's core overland design AND give more difficulty to the players who needed it to enjoy the quest.

I don't personally think there's any reason we can't have such a thing here. I personally don't support a separate instance but something like what LOTRO did is not something I just support but something I think is needed for the health of the game. There's a lot of people out there unhappy with the current difficulty.

Definitely a "simple matter of programming." (Anyone who has ever been a professional software developer knows that they need to drop everything and exit the building when they hear that phrase. It is akin to a fire drill, but more urgent. )

I always hesitate to compare other games with ESO because doing that always comes with an assumption of parity. ESO is just like LOTRO, so if LOTRO did it, ESO can do it too. Both games are very complex and very different.

So, while the idea might sound, to us, like it is something people would want, we have no idea what it would take to do it. We can guess, and there are different camps with different guesses, but only ZOS knows. ZOS is not going to enlighten us, either.

I mean, look at Class Change Tokens. There is something technical there that makes it non-trivial, and we have no idea what it is. Some people are assuming that it is as simple as "Set Class To Nuthin'" followed by "Set Class To Arcanist" and call it a day. For all we know, ZOS sees it like building the Chunnel out of Legos. I think Overland is probably similar in nature.

Elsonso

WiseSky wrote: »

All this feedback and guess what...

ZOS has a long history of nerfing bosses that goes all the way back to launch. I think if you look back, you will see an overall trend of the game has been "easier", especially in overland content related to quest and questing areas.

AlexanderDeLarge

At this point I'm far beyond caring whether it's actually easy to implement or not. Some sort of debuff memento with associated gold/XP multipliers should be easy enough to implement but you never know with spaghetti code. That being said, it certainly warrants more attention than it's getting in a world where lots of resources were allocated towards another attempt at an elder scrolls card game with Trials of Tribulation. I don't know anyone who was asking for that yet that was 2022's 'big feature'.

Unfortunately the technical and design concerns that may or may not exist are all speculation as ZOS makes the conscious decision to not communicate with us every single day. If they're going to continue to not bother, I'm going to give them the same lack of consideration when I post from now on. Frankly I'm tired of looking at this from a thousand different angles trying to figure out how difficult it may or may not be to accomplish, as the customer, that's not my role in this transaction of service. I know what I want and it's some form of difficulty scaling mechanic. It seems to be a popular request with damn near universal support depending on the way it's implemented. There are many proposals on how to accomplish this and many of them are minimally invasive and impactful to the existing userbase that wouldn't engage with it. I don't need ZOS to raise the difficulty floor for everyone but also this is not specifically a 'veteran problem' as I have seen plenty of brand new players ask whether or not the game ever gets more difficult.

AlexanderDeLarge

I can appreciate the fact that millions of people(?) enjoy the game as-is but I certainly don't and without a difficulty scaling mechanic, myself along with many others aren't playing the game as a result. This seems to be something that is possible and relatively easy to implement depending on how it's done. What I don't appreciate is being strung along for nearly a year and a half on the subject with zero official response to thousands of posts worth of feedback besides a generic 'thank you for your feedback, we'll be discussing this internally' message along with Rich Lambert's dismissal of the whole subject because Cadwell Silver/Gold from nearly a decade ago which is debatable on many points to say the least.

It was important enough to warrant a pinned thread for the past 470 days but not enough to warrant a single response of significance or consideration to anything that has been posted here ever beyond what I mentioned above? How many thousands of posts do we need to get someone in here to end the endless speculation on how a non-transparent company operates and what their codebase looks like and actually respond to anything that we've freely given them as players?

Elsonso

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

It was important enough to warrant a pinned thread for the past 470 days but not enough to warrant a single response of significance or consideration to anything that has been posted here ever beyond what I mentioned above? How many thousands of posts do we need to get someone in here to end the endless speculation on how a non-transparent company operates and what their codebase looks like and actually respond to anything that we've freely given them as players?

The world may never know.




My assumption is that silence means that it is coming, but there is no date when we can expect it. (that they are willing to share)

colossalvoids

For some reason I'm suspecting new "endless dungeon with a buddy" is a new distraction primarily for ones who have nothing to do in game rn, might be absolutely wrong and hope to be proven wrong actually.

Just for the record if zos actually monitoring anything, people aren't dissatisfied with low hp wolves and mudcrabs some users are so fixated on, but about connecting with stories and having actual challenges when appropriate. Infinitely scaling packs of wolves aren't what most of us looking for. Yet again hoping to be proven just being pessimistic and wrong.

SilverBride

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

It was important enough to warrant a pinned thread for the past 470 days but not enough to warrant a single response of significance or consideration to anything that has been posted here ever beyond what I mentioned above? How many thousands of posts do we need to get someone in here to end the endless speculation on how a non-transparent company operates and what their codebase looks like and actually respond to anything that we've freely given them as players?

This thread was not pinned because it was an important topic. It was pinned to address a problem with multiple threads on the same topic causing a negative experience for some forum users and to keep the discussion in one place.

And there was a statement that Rich Lambert made on this topic in an interview that was acknowledged in this thread that clearly states their current position on the topic.

Blackbird_V

colossalvoids wrote: »

For some reason I'm suspecting new "endless dungeon with a buddy" is a new distraction primarily for ones who have nothing to do in game rn, might be absolutely wrong and hope to be proven wrong actually.

Just for the record if zos actually monitoring anything, people aren't dissatisfied with low hp wolves and mudcrabs some users are so fixated on, but about connecting with stories and having actual challenges when appropriate. Infinitely scaling packs of wolves aren't what most of us looking for. Yet again hoping to be proven just being pessimistic and wrong.

I want the sense and feel of Cadwell's Gold difficulty, personally. That Xivkyn at the Dolmen I want to be slapped hard by, as they were created by Molag Bal as his personal guard. They should be tough and not go down like a wet noodle.

I want the sense of danger when traversing the world.

SilverBride

colossalvoids wrote: »

...people aren't dissatisfied with low hp wolves and mudcrabs some users are so fixated on, but about connecting with stories and having actual challenges when appropriate. Infinitely scaling packs of wolves aren't what most of us looking for...

If you aren't dissatisfied with the general trash mobs of overland and are seeking more of a challenge with the story bosses then I think challenge banners would be a great option. The player could choose the boss fight to be more difficult while not affecting all of overland, especially since most players would be gathering resources etc. in normal overland anyway.

Is this something you could find acceptable?

colossalvoids

SilverBride wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

...people aren't dissatisfied with low hp wolves and mudcrabs some users are so fixated on, but about connecting with stories and having actual challenges when appropriate. Infinitely scaling packs of wolves aren't what most of us looking for...

If you aren't dissatisfied with the general trash mobs of overland and are seeking more of a challenge with the story bosses then I think challenge banners would be a great option. The player could choose the boss fight to be more difficult while not affecting all of overland, especially since most players would be gathering resources etc. in normal overland anyway.

Is this something you could find acceptable?

That's one of the ideas I've came up with years ago and used as an example since this threads beginning and in ones created before, I'd even mention that I've came with this particular idea to Rich so he's perfectly aware of it. He's just looking for a different kind of feedback, not solutions from us, but problems we're having. Not sure I have permission to cite him on this.

Ps: Not claiming to be the first one though, that's a community work that was though out in one thread years ago that we evolved and some shared on different places like class rep discords or pm's to zos.

SilverBride

colossalvoids wrote: »

I've came with this particular idea to Rich so he's perfectly aware of it. He's just looking for a different kind of feedback, not solutions from us, but problems we're having.

Presenting suggestions for how a positive change could be accomplished is part of constructive feedback. Of course they don't have to implement our suggestions but it does give insight on the type of solutions that are being requested.

colossalvoids

SilverBride wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

I've came with this particular idea to Rich so he's perfectly aware of it. He's just looking for a different kind of feedback, not solutions from us, but problems we're having.

Presenting suggestions for how a positive change could be accomplished is part of constructive feedback. Of course they don't have to implement our suggestions but it does give insight on the type of solutions that are being requested.

Let's just say I was told they're interested in our pain points in particular, I'm kinda suspecting it's not only about their artistic vision but that we're lacking understanding their code and architecture as outsiders. Or both, but everything that was implemented through requests didn't matched people's actual asks, be it ability timers implementation or awa, they are sticking to their own vision for those things for better or worse.

SilverBride

colossalvoids wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

I've came with this particular idea to Rich so he's perfectly aware of it. He's just looking for a different kind of feedback, not solutions from us, but problems we're having.

Presenting suggestions for how a positive change could be accomplished is part of constructive feedback. Of course they don't have to implement our suggestions but it does give insight on the type of solutions that are being requested.

Let's just say I was told they're interested in our pain points in particular, I'm kinda suspecting it's not only about their artistic vision but that we're lacking understanding their code and architecture as outsiders. Or both, but everything that was implemented through requests didn't matched people's actual asks, be it ability timers implementation or awa, they are sticking to their own vision for those things for better or worse.

That's their perogative but nothing is lost by giving suggestions.

I'd like to add that asking for a separate veteran overland is also offering a solution.

colossalvoids

SilverBride wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

I've came with this particular idea to Rich so he's perfectly aware of it. He's just looking for a different kind of feedback, not solutions from us, but problems we're having.

Presenting suggestions for how a positive change could be accomplished is part of constructive feedback. Of course they don't have to implement our suggestions but it does give insight on the type of solutions that are being requested.

Let's just say I was told they're interested in our pain points in particular, I'm kinda suspecting it's not only about their artistic vision but that we're lacking understanding their code and architecture as outsiders. Or both, but everything that was implemented through requests didn't matched people's actual asks, be it ability timers implementation or awa, they are sticking to their own vision for those things for better or worse.

That's their perogative but nothing is lost by giving suggestions.

I'd like to add that asking for a separate veteran overland is also offering a solution.

It is, the thing is though to give suggestions but not fight over it as it makes no affect on the end result so to say. It's not like they'll digest arguments for and against some forms people present, they have an internal team for that work. Vet overland is kinda buzz term people see different things in, for me completely different one and banners, or battle-spirit enabled ones are the same thing but from different angles due to arising problems some of those having. I'd be utilising any most probably, some would offer more and some will less in both long and short run.

Not that I think they're working on it, imo it would require the game to actually be on a brink of death/decline like lotro kinda was.

SilverBride

colossalvoids wrote: »

...the thing is though to give suggestions but not fight over it as it makes no affect on the end result so to say. It's not like they'll digest arguments for and against some forms people present, they have an internal team for that work.

I don't consider disagreeing with an idea that we think would be harmful to the game fighting over it. But feedback about why we may consider a certain suggestion bad is just as important because it shows that what one person considers a good idea may be devastating to another. We don't all have the same pain points.

AlexanderDeLarge

SilverBride wrote: »

This thread was not pinned because it was an important topic. It was pinned to address a problem with multiple threads on the same topic causing a negative experience for some forum users and to keep the discussion in one place.

And there was a statement that Rich Lambert made on this topic in an interview that was acknowledged in this thread that clearly states their current position on the topic.

So in other words, a containment thread for a popular request and topic of discussion. As for Rich Lambert's response, I don't consider that a response because he's not responding to anything discussed in this thread and proves he hasn't read a single page of what we've been saying for 158 pages over the past 471 days.

God could give me the gift of immortality and if I saw or heard the words "Cadwell Silver/Gold" at the moment of the heat death of the universe, it would be far too soon.

Elsonso

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

This thread was not pinned because it was an important topic. It was pinned to address a problem with multiple threads on the same topic causing a negative experience for some forum users and to keep the discussion in one place.

And there was a statement that Rich Lambert made on this topic in an interview that was acknowledged in this thread that clearly states their current position on the topic.

So in other words, a containment thread for a popular request and topic of discussion. As for Rich Lambert's response, I don't consider that a response because he's not responding to anything discussed in this thread and proves he hasn't read a single page of what we've been saying for 158 pages over the past 471 days.

Yes, this is a containment thread. They have already admitted this, right in the very first comment in this thread. ZOS has made no commitment related to Overland, other than to not close this thread so long as we behave.

So, when you say that Lambert's responses don't respond to what is said in this thread, you are not wrong, but I doubt that it is because they don't know what is said in here. They do read this stuff, if not directly then through second hand summaries and anecdotal references.

So, why is Lambert not addressing what is said in here? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Personally, I wish he would. Still, we can draw better conclusions than "they be ignoring us."

The first premise is that they recognize they need to do something with overland difficulty. This thread is irrelevant to that end, but it is a topic they are interested in, and potentially interested enough that they are working on it. Remember that ZOS has said they are looking for problems, not solutions. To that end, this thread has not had anything new in it for a very very long time. That means that they could be working on something, and have something coming, but my guess is that it is independent of this thread. Whatever they do may have been mentioned in here, but it would be happenstance. At this point, the thread is entertainment value only.

This is one of those cases where they will talk about it when they are good and ready, but not a second before then.

The second premise is that they think overland is performing exactly as designed and there is no need for them to do anything. They would be aware of what is being said in the thread, but it really has no bearing on game design because the game design went in a different direction. If this is the case, I can't imagine that ZOS is interested in this thread from a game design perspective. The topic is abstract. Entertainment value only.

If this is the case, then Lambert is on point. ZOS already made their decision in this regard.

I just wish ZOS would make a statement of direction on the matter. If they have no pending plans, then at least say so. People are free to discuss, but if people think they are discussing something important and impactful, and ZOS is disinterested, then say so. They did it with Auction House, and they did it with Class Change Tokens, so if they aren't going to do this, just say so. If they are holding the door open for this, or are going to do this, then let us know, just this once. (I promise not to ask again until the next time )

SilverBride

Elsonso wrote: »

The second premise is that they think overland is performing exactly as designed and there is no need for them to do anything. They would be aware of what is being said in the thread, but it really has no bearing on game design because the game design went in a different direction. If this is the case, I can't imagine that ZOS is interested in this thread from a game design perspective. The topic is abstract. Entertainment value only.

If this is the case, then Lambert is on point. ZOS already made their decision in this regard.

I just wish ZOS would make a statement of direction on the matter. If they have no pending plans, then at least say so.

They did. Rich made a statement in an interview that they don't have any major changes planned for overland difficulty and Kevin posted it in this thread.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi All, as many of you have noted already from Rich's interview, there are no current plans for changing the structure of overland content. It is something we will continue to look at, so constructive feedback is always appreciated.

The purpose of this thread is to collect constructive feedback so if there is an opportunity to make changes, we have feedback from players to possibly incorporate. However, if the conversation continues to be users arguing with each other, we will lock this thread. We understand not everyone will agree with the statement. However, you can disagree and voice it without pushing the buttons of other forum users.

As always, please follow the community guidelines.

IKYMI: 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."

Elsonso

SilverBride wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

The second premise is that they think overland is performing exactly as designed and there is no need for them to do anything. They would be aware of what is being said in the thread, but it really has no bearing on game design because the game design went in a different direction. If this is the case, I can't imagine that ZOS is interested in this thread from a game design perspective. The topic is abstract. Entertainment value only.

If this is the case, then Lambert is on point. ZOS already made their decision in this regard.

I just wish ZOS would make a statement of direction on the matter. If they have no pending plans, then at least say so.

They did. Rich made a statement in an interview that they don't have any major changes planned for overland difficulty and Kevin posted it in this thread.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi All, as many of you have noted already from Rich's interview, there are no current plans for changing the structure of overland content. It is something we will continue to look at, so constructive feedback is always appreciated.

The purpose of this thread is to collect constructive feedback so if there is an opportunity to make changes, we have feedback from players to possibly incorporate. However, if the conversation continues to be users arguing with each other, we will lock this thread. We understand not everyone will agree with the statement. However, you can disagree and voice it without pushing the buttons of other forum users.

As always, please follow the community guidelines.

IKYMI: 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."

Ahh, good. Thanks!

Edit: Although, that comment from @ZOS_Kevin is now old enough to have grandchildren. At least, as far as the passage of Internet Time is concerned.

SilverBride

That post is from April 2022 and nothing different has been stated since, so I find it still relevant.

But I do agree with your second premise and believe that is exactly what the situation is. It seems to me that if there were any plans at all for overland they would have been announced with all the other changes happening this year.

Elsonso

SilverBride wrote: »

That post is from April 2022 and nothing different has been stated since, so I find it still relevant.

Well, in general, I consider that anything ZOS says about "no plans" expires about a year after they say it. That sort of a statement has a half-life measured in the number of "planning sessions" that happen. I figure they do some sort of planning exercise at least once per year, and while the statement still may be valid, there is half as much certainty about it with each "planning session" that comes along.

SilverBride

Elsonso wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

That post is from April 2022 and nothing different has been stated since, so I find it still relevant.

Well, in general, I consider that anything ZOS says about "no plans" expires about a year after they say it. That sort of a statement has a half-life measured in the number of "planning sessions" that happen. I figure they do some sort of planning exercise at least once per year, and while the statement still may be valid, there is half as much certainty about it with each "planning session" that comes along.

Statements don't expire. Information can change and a new statement be issued but that hasn't happened in this case.

Elsonso

SilverBride wrote: »

Statements don't expire. Information can change and a new statement be issued but that hasn't happened in this case.

Sadly, they do expire, and when they do, we will be the last to know.

When presenting an old statement of "no plans" from ZOS, one has to consider that this could be changing, literally, the next time we hear from them. They could roll out the Necrom Chapter base game updates and voilà! it includes veteran overland.

That is why don't like to firmly close the door on anything that ZOS might do, including veteran overland, auction house, class change tokens, etc. They are just one "hmm, maybe we should" away from a path that negates everything they have ever said that suggests, or even states, they have "no plans" to do something.

Right now, I think "veteran overland" is more expensive to do than they are willing to spend, and maybe that terminates any further thought into the matter on their end. I could be wrong. Maybe they will decide to add it to the plan for next year. Maybe they decided to add it to the plan for this year and we just haven't been told yet. Maybe it will never be done. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I should write a paper... Explorations into the half-life of a ZOS statement. Part theoretical physics and part philosophy.

SilverBride

Statements can change and will no longer be the current information but until they announce a change in their plans I consider Rich's statement as still current and relevant.

I would honestly be shocked if they ever did anything about overland difficulty because that isn't the direction this game has taken and it has thrived in its current state.

Blackbird_V

SilverBride wrote: »

Statements can change and will no longer be the current information but until they announce a change in their plans I consider Rich's statement as still current and relevant.

I would honestly be shocked if they ever did anything about overland difficulty because that isn't the direction this game has taken and it has thrived in its current state.

The end-game scene... not so much, unfortunately. If anything it's going downhill.