Overland Content Feedback Thread

Franchise408

With a new class coming out, the idea of creating a new character is relevant.

When that time comes that I create a new character, I will be in overland just long enough to reach level 10 when I can then do dungeons. After that, I will never touch overland again.

That's how I feel about the state of overland.

Tornaad

Franchise408 wrote: »

With a new class coming out, the idea of creating a new character is relevant.

When that time comes that I create a new character, I will be in overland just long enough to reach level 10 when I can then do dungeons. After that, I will never touch overland again.

That's how I feel about the state of overland.

A truly sad state. And even if you represent a minority of players, that is something I feel needs to be addressed. I just wish we could come to some kind of consensus on what that might be. I am seriously confused about why there would be push back to the idea of something like an optional difficulty setting that utilizes current in game technologies in such a way that it does not affect anyone who does not want to use it. Something like that, if properly done, could add life back into the game for a lot of people. Increase the retention rate of players in the end game, and if they kept the zone chats unified across the different instances, still allow for the new player to get all the help they need. And there will be people like myself, who will only use the harder difficulty on the occasion, that means even more ways that newer players will still have people there to help them.
Realistically, we are likely talking maybe 20% of players who would use the harder difficulty settings but that 20% is still 3.6 million players. And if they said that you had to be a subscriber to access the harder difficulty, (while yes it would alienate some) many would jump at the chance and that would increase revenue while increasing long term retention. So, it would essentially be a win for everyone, and yet, we still have people fighting against the idea. Many of whom on both sides have very tender feelings. And the idea that there would be so much division on this seemingly simple topic confuses me.

SilverBride

Tornaad wrote: »

I am seriously confused about why there would be push back to the idea of something like an optional difficulty setting that utilizes current in game technologies in such a way that it does not affect anyone who does not want to use it.

Because anything they do to the game affects everyone. Besides all the other reasons that have been given, they already cut out most character achievements for account wide so what would they have to cut to make room for a veteran overland? And all this for the very small percentage of players that would ever use it. Also, they would only be able to play through the story once per character, so then what?

Tornaad wrote: »

Realistically, we are likely talking maybe 20% of players who would use the harder difficulty settings but that 20% is still 3.6 million players.

That is a very generous estimate. It's probably closer to 2%.

CrashTest

SilverBride wrote: »

Also, they would only be able to play through the story once per character, so then what?

That's what I was thinking too, and why the idea of harder difficulty for quest bosses and overland dungeons is a better solution than increased difficulty for everything overland.

For argument's sake, let's say ZOS did add an option to increase difficulty for everything overland. Eventually, the people who want that are going to find it easy. What then? Will you ask for even harder overland? If yes, then how much more difficulty is enough so that it doesn't get boring for you?

Tornaad

SilverBride wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

I am seriously confused about why there would be push back to the idea of something like an optional difficulty setting that utilizes current in game technologies in such a way that it does not affect anyone who does not want to use it.

Because anything they do to the game affects everyone. Besides all the other reasons that have been given, they already cut out most character achievements for account wide so what would they have to cut to make room for a veteran overland? And all this for the very small percentage of players that would ever use it. Also, they would only be able to play through the story once per character, so then what?

Tornaad wrote: »

Realistically, we are likely talking maybe 20% of players who would use the harder difficulty settings but that 20% is still 3.6 million players.

That is a very generous estimate. It's probably closer to 2%.

Maybe for the hardest difficulty yes, I can certainly see 2% but if they were to add multiple difficulty levels, similar to Skyrim, then I could see a lot more people using it, especially if they implemented it well.

For me, if I could get an increased overland difficulty, I would likely actually purchase new character slots and run through the story 20 times.

SilverBride

Tornaad wrote: »

For me, if I could get an increased overland difficulty, I would likely actually purchase new character slots and run through the story 20 times.

Most players wouldn't.

When something is requested there are a lot of things to consider beyond just the fact that some players want it. I would be asking things such as these:

Is there a need for it? Is it going to fix something that is broken? Will something else have to be cut to accommodate it? Is it going to be utilized by enough players to make it worthwhile? Does it align with the direction the game is taking?

They may or may not be asking these particular questions but it's certain that they would have to look at the pros and cons of any major suggestion.

I personally don't feel that there are enough good reasons to make this change.

Elsonso

Tornaad wrote: »

For me, if I could get an increased overland difficulty, I would likely actually purchase new character slots and run through the story 20 times.

The premise of AwA is that the player has already done stuff, so tracking and awarding achievements for doing it again is a redundant waste of time and resources. I get that quests are handled per character, but the premise is the same. Who is doing this extra stuff in the game? I have to consider that people who might follow your lead in this are a minority compared to the people who have already done it and don't want to do it again. See also: Class Change Token.

Tornaad

The audience for Skyrim and the audience for ESO overlap enough that the fact that many ESO players wanted ESO to simply be Skyrim with friends has driven many changes to ESO, for example companions.

For a game like Skyrim to be released without difficulty settings would leave it mocked for being incomplete, and for this same reason, many of us feel that ESO needs difficulty settings.

For me, if I had difficulty settings in ESO, I would likely never get tired of overland content.

SilverBride

But is there really a need to create a veteran overland beyond the reason that some players are bored?

Tornaad

Isn't the purpose of a game to entertain?

Melivar

If they added an option for increased difficulty for overland, I would certainly use it when the mood hit me but there are days where it's nice to just blow through some quests and knock out skill points on alts as well.

The biggest issue I have would be rewards and making anything only available by doing the harder modes. This would make people who may struggle with overland to feel that they need to also do the harder mode because they want X item or whatever it is.

Now if there are no extra rewards associated with harder difficulty all is good but then how many people would actually use it.

Then you would get into is it worth committing resources to revamping all the past zones unless it's an easy fix like a toggle.

A happy medium could be future zones having two versions much like newer dungeons have multiple hard modes for each boss, and older dungeons and dlc's only have it on the final boss.

SilverBride

Tornaad wrote: »

Isn't the purpose of a game to entertain?

It is impossible for any game to be everything for everyone because we all have different preferences. So we participate in the parts we enjoy and don't in the parts we don't.

Making a major change because a very small minority is bored isn't justified in my opinion.

Tornaad

I would venture that the fact that they needed to create a single pinned thread that has now gotten to 159 pages of people debating both sides of this, that is not a small amount of interest.

SilverBride

Tornaad wrote: »

I would venture that the fact that they needed to create a single pinned thread that has now gotten to 159 pages of people debating both sides of this, that is not a small amount of interest.

This thread was created and pinned to address a problem, not because they had an interest in implementing more difficulty.

From the original post:

"Hi All. We have seen the multitude of threads related to Overland Content. The increase in weekly threads around this issue has caused some users to have a negative experience on the forum overall, leading to the threads being closed. However, we also recognize there are players who would like to discuss this topic. So, we have made a thread for players who would like to discuss the topic of Overland Content.

With the creation of this thread, please note that future threads created to address overland content will be closed and redirected to this one."

Tornaad

Hence there is a lot interest, and charged feelings on both sides.

SilverBride

Tornaad wrote: »

Hence there is a lot interest, and charged feelings on both sides.

Not really. It's been almost exclusively the same handful of posters for most of the thread.

Tornaad

And with how charged the feelings on both sides are it has likely scared a lot of people off. I know I've been scared off on multiple occasions. I just keep coming back because I know that there is a need for things.

Blackbird_V

SilverBride wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

For me, if I could get an increased overland difficulty, I would likely actually purchase new character slots and run through the story 20 times.

Is there a need for it? Is it going to fix something that is broken? Will something else have to be cut to accommodate it? Is it going to be utilized by enough players to make it worthwhile? Does it align with the direction the game is taking?

So should we then scrap the upcoming endless 2 man dungeon? We weren't asked for that system or made any suggestion. Is it fixing anything? No, unrelated to this at least. Is there a need for it? Yes - something brand new for end-game players.

Finally:
1) Is it going to be utilized be enough players? We don't know. Just like Veteran Overland it's a gamble. May be a waste of time.
2) It doesn't matter what the direction of the game is for something like this. It's just another system. Like how Vet Overland we're asking for, and with it being optional.

---

2* 4 Man dungeon DLCs currently have been working, but this shake-up replacing 1 dungeon dlc with new system shows that ZoS are capable of trying new things. This may be a gamble for them still though. Who knows?

SilverBride

Blackbird_V wrote: »

So should we then scrap the upcoming endless 2 man dungeon? We weren't asked for that system or made any suggestion. Is it fixing anything?

ZoS adding new sytems to the game has nothing to do with overland difficulty. We don't have to have requested something for them to develop and implement it. They use their own ideas that fit the direction they want to take the game.

Four_Fingers

The most amusing premise put forward is that Skyrim is considered hard.

Tornaad

What I would like to know is why is this such a controversial topic. Why are some people so opposed to any form of this idea, regardless of how it is suggested?

TaSheen

Tornaad wrote: »

What I would like to know is why is this such a controversial topic. Why are some people so opposed to any form of this idea, regardless of how it is suggested?

Some of us (which includes me) are perfectly happy with overland as is. Some of us (which also includes me) would be fine with an optional setup - whatever it might turn out to be - to provide a harder overland. Some of us (which also includes me) have decided that if harder overland in toto flies, we'll just deal with it. And I say that, because I'm not sanguine that ZOS will go for opional - remember AWA, which those who didn't want it requested over and over for optional. I didn't care one way or the other, but was on the side of "optional" because I have friends who were terribly distressed by the possibility of a "done wrong deal" - and who have almost all left the game because of that.

Tornaad

TaSheen wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

What I would like to know is why is this such a controversial topic. Why are some people so opposed to any form of this idea, regardless of how it is suggested?

Some of us (which includes me) are perfectly happy with overland as is. Some of us (which also includes me) would be fine with an optional setup - whatever it might turn out to be - to provide a harder overland. Some of us (which also includes me) have decided that if harder overland in toto flies, we'll just deal with it. And I say that, because I'm not sanguine that ZOS will go for opional - remember AWA, which those who didn't want it requested over and over for optional. I didn't care one way or the other, but was on the side of "optional" because I have friends who were terribly distressed by the possibility of a "done wrong deal" - and who have almost all left the game because of that.

The only way I would want harder overland difficulty is if it were optional.

TaSheen

Tornaad wrote: »

The only way I would want harder overland difficulty is if it were optional.

That would be my preference as well - because I wouldn't have to touch it myself. I'm just not expecting that to be the eventual outcome.

Tornaad

TaSheen wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

The only way I would want harder overland difficulty is if it were optional.

That would be my preference as well - because I wouldn't have to touch it myself. I'm just not expecting that to be the eventual outcome.

When ESO first came out, I wanted nothing to do with it. My Elder Scrolls games had to be single player only. But after more than 5 years of the only playing Skyrim as the game I played, I was ready for something new to feed my Elder Scrolls addiction (I got seriously lost in Tamriel when I found Morrowind shortly after it came out) and so after I confirmed a few things, I decided to give ESO a try. Initially, it was with the intention of dropping it like a bad habit the moment Elder Scrolls 6 came out, but now, it has grown on me and feels like one of my Elder Scrolls games. How I will manage to play 2 games at the same time when Elder Scrolls 6 comes out, I have no idea.

ESO is the first MMO I have ever played and to put it mildly, I sucked badly when I fist started playing. There was an overland boss that you run into as part of the zone story in Coldharbour, that when I first ran into it, I probably died a dozen times trying to kill it, and even then only managed to get through it, with help from someone else.

After I got through that boss, I deleted that first character, and created a new one from scratch. So, while now, I can solo most group dungeons on normal, and even a few on veteran, and have gotten perfect runs on both single player arenas, I still remember that first character, and realize that there will be a lot of people like me coming over from Skyrim to the world of ESO, and know that they would likely be driven away if the whole game was scaled to a level I can handle now.

But, my favorite part of Elder Scrolls is to just go wandering the world and doing whatever quest happens to come my way. Right now, I feel like I am facing melted butter and get board on my favorite part of the game.

Sometimes, I want that feeling of going through melted butter, other times, I want to be able to have a nightmarish challenge, and I want that option to be available on my favorite part of the game, the part that most closely resembles the world I have been lost in for more than 20 years now.

I am hurt that so many people seem to be so completely opposed to what should be a simple request to add an optional difficulty level that would maintain the experience I still love, while giving me, and others like me, the option to do what the Elder Scrolls world is supposed to be built around specifically to play the way I want to play.

The idea that half of this thread is people trying to say, that would be bad and wrong is hurtful almost to the point of being painful. I love this game and simply want to be able to continue loving it with the skill level I have built up over the last nearly 6 years of playing ESO.

I will likely never want to regularly do group content. I try, but my Elder Scrolls games for 20 years have been single player experiences. I really do not have any friends on ESO, and I likely never will. So, the idea that someone would find it wrong that I simply want to both preserve the existing experience and add on to it, something that would let me play the way I want in a game that is part of a series I have loved for 20 years is something that I will never be able to understand.

TaSheen

If it was obvious that ZOS was working on "optional harder overland" almost no one would be concerned, outside of a couple of holdouts. I just am not convinced that's what will happen. I think one of two things will be done: nothing at all; or ramped up "harder overland" across the board (in other words, non optional).

I don't do group content - mega ping sucks, and I'm not drumping that on others to deal with. And I know exactly how I'm going to play TES VI alongside ESO, because I'm still playing Skyrim and Oblivion alongside ESO. Assuming I'm still alive and able to play computer games when it lands.

Elsonso

.

Tornaad wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

The only way I would want harder overland difficulty is if it were optional.

That would be my preference as well - because I wouldn't have to touch it myself. I'm just not expecting that to be the eventual outcome.

When ESO first came out, I wanted nothing to do with it. My Elder Scrolls games had to be single player only. But after more than 5 years of the only playing Skyrim as the game I played, I was ready for something new to feed my Elder Scrolls addiction (I got seriously lost in Tamriel when I found Morrowind shortly after it came out) and so after I confirmed a few things, I decided to give ESO a try. Initially, it was with the intention of dropping it like a bad habit the moment Elder Scrolls 6 came out, but now, it has grown on me and feels like one of my Elder Scrolls games. How I will manage to play 2 games at the same time when Elder Scrolls 6 comes out, I have no idea.

ESO is the first MMO I have ever played and to put it mildly, I sucked badly when I fist started playing. There was an overland boss that you run into as part of the zone story in Coldharbour, that when I first ran into it, I probably died a dozen times trying to kill it, and even then only managed to get through it, with help from someone else.

After I got through that boss, I deleted that first character, and created a new one from scratch. So, while now, I can solo most group dungeons on normal, and even a few on veteran, and have gotten perfect runs on both single player arenas, I still remember that first character, and realize that there will be a lot of people like me coming over from Skyrim to the world of ESO, and know that they would likely be driven away if the whole game was scaled to a level I can handle now.

But, my favorite part of Elder Scrolls is to just go wandering the world and doing whatever quest happens to come my way. Right now, I feel like I am facing melted butter and get board on my favorite part of the game.

Sometimes, I want that feeling of going through melted butter, other times, I want to be able to have a nightmarish challenge, and I want that option to be available on my favorite part of the game, the part that most closely resembles the world I have been lost in for more than 20 years now.

I am hurt that so many people seem to be so completely opposed to what should be a simple request to add an optional difficulty level that would maintain the experience I still love, while giving me, and others like me, the option to do what the Elder Scrolls world is supposed to be built around specifically to play the way I want to play.

The idea that half of this thread is people trying to say, that would be bad and wrong is hurtful almost to the point of being painful. I love this game and simply want to be able to continue loving it with the skill level I have built up over the last nearly 6 years of playing ESO.

I will likely never want to regularly do group content. I try, but my Elder Scrolls games for 20 years have been single player experiences. I really do not have any friends on ESO, and I likely never will. So, the idea that someone would find it wrong that I simply want to both preserve the existing experience and add on to it, something that would let me play the way I want in a game that is part of a series I have loved for 20 years is something that I will never be able to understand.

When I want a nightmarish challenge, I solo group dungeons. Why? Because that is where the hard content is, not in overland.

Tornaad

Elsonso wrote: »

.

Tornaad wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

The only way I would want harder overland difficulty is if it were optional.

That would be my preference as well - because I wouldn't have to touch it myself. I'm just not expecting that to be the eventual outcome.

When ESO first came out, I wanted nothing to do with it. My Elder Scrolls games had to be single player only. But after more than 5 years of the only playing Skyrim as the game I played, I was ready for something new to feed my Elder Scrolls addiction (I got seriously lost in Tamriel when I found Morrowind shortly after it came out) and so after I confirmed a few things, I decided to give ESO a try. Initially, it was with the intention of dropping it like a bad habit the moment Elder Scrolls 6 came out, but now, it has grown on me and feels like one of my Elder Scrolls games. How I will manage to play 2 games at the same time when Elder Scrolls 6 comes out, I have no idea.

ESO is the first MMO I have ever played and to put it mildly, I sucked badly when I fist started playing. There was an overland boss that you run into as part of the zone story in Coldharbour, that when I first ran into it, I probably died a dozen times trying to kill it, and even then only managed to get through it, with help from someone else.

After I got through that boss, I deleted that first character, and created a new one from scratch. So, while now, I can solo most group dungeons on normal, and even a few on veteran, and have gotten perfect runs on both single player arenas, I still remember that first character, and realize that there will be a lot of people like me coming over from Skyrim to the world of ESO, and know that they would likely be driven away if the whole game was scaled to a level I can handle now.

But, my favorite part of Elder Scrolls is to just go wandering the world and doing whatever quest happens to come my way. Right now, I feel like I am facing melted butter and get board on my favorite part of the game.

Sometimes, I want that feeling of going through melted butter, other times, I want to be able to have a nightmarish challenge, and I want that option to be available on my favorite part of the game, the part that most closely resembles the world I have been lost in for more than 20 years now.

I am hurt that so many people seem to be so completely opposed to what should be a simple request to add an optional difficulty level that would maintain the experience I still love, while giving me, and others like me, the option to do what the Elder Scrolls world is supposed to be built around specifically to play the way I want to play.

The idea that half of this thread is people trying to say, that would be bad and wrong is hurtful almost to the point of being painful. I love this game and simply want to be able to continue loving it with the skill level I have built up over the last nearly 6 years of playing ESO.

I will likely never want to regularly do group content. I try, but my Elder Scrolls games for 20 years have been single player experiences. I really do not have any friends on ESO, and I likely never will. So, the idea that someone would find it wrong that I simply want to both preserve the existing experience and add on to it, something that would let me play the way I want in a game that is part of a series I have loved for 20 years is something that I will never be able to understand.

When I want a nightmarish challenge, I solo group dungeons. Why? Because that is where the hard content is, not in overland.

That is what I currently do as well. I would just like more options and maybe a happy medium as well.

SilverBride

Tornaad wrote: »

I am hurt that so many people seem to be so completely opposed to what should be a simple request to add an optional difficulty level that would maintain the experience I still love, while giving me, and others like me, the option to do what the Elder Scrolls world is supposed to be built around specifically to play the way I want to play.

The idea that half of this thread is people trying to say, that would be bad and wrong is hurtful almost to the point of being painful.

Players have different opinions on what is good for the game. This will happen with any idea, because we don't all see it the same way. I just see way too many drawbacks to support a separate veteran overland.

I do support a debuff and challenge banners for story bosses, because those would provide a QoL option for players who want that without affecting everyone else. Those have been accepted by some as good options but others oppose them.

Tornaad

As long as whatever they do is optional, and does not force anyone into harder content, then I will likely be fine with it.