Overland Content Feedback Thread

vsrs_au

I just thought I'd mention my idea, and rephrase it for more clarity. I mentioned it many pages ago, but the newer visitors to this thread may not have seen it. Even though it was basically rubbished by the handful of posters alluded to above, I still think it's worth reiterating:

Instead of creating an optional veteran mode for overland, ZOS could simply introduce tougher mobs and/or mini-bosses in small areas of overland that aren't otherwise used for anything else. There are many such areas. To make these areas more attractive, the loot could be scaled up a little bit in value.
Those who wish to enter and accept something a bit more challenging may do so, while those unwilling to participate may simply bypass these areas. It's an easy and low-impact solution that shouldn't require rewriting big sections of code.

colossalvoids

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.

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.

You honestly shouldn't worry about it in that way, it seems like that by the length of the thread but it's the same handful of posters. That's way far from the word "some" when you can hand count those, let alone "many". Don't be discouraged to give feedback, you're also not obligated to reply every single time as all points were countered posts and posts ago and are on repeat basically for most of the thread.

But giving feedback is essential for this issue people are having. The more detailed feedback they'll receive the more chances for it to be done right considering all the parties, if it would be on their cards anytime. Last thing people want is to make another awa style change that was handled so poorly it hurts for some.

Tornaad

colossalvoids 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.

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.

You honestly shouldn't worry about it in that way, it seems like that by the length of the thread but it's the same handful of posters. That's way far from the word "some" when you can hand count those, let alone "many". Don't be discouraged to give feedback, you're also not obligated to reply every single time as all points were countered posts and posts ago and are on repeat basically for most of the thread.

But giving feedback is essential for this issue people are having. The more detailed feedback they'll receive the more chances for it to be done right considering all the parties, if it would be on their cards anytime. Last thing people want is to make another awa style change that was handled so poorly it hurts for some.

Really what I am hoping for, is to get this thread turned from effectively being an Overland Content Argument Thread to a real discussion. As it is evident that neither side is ever going to give up their positions, why not propose a sort of treaty? For example, nominate those arguing against harder overland content as sort of moderators who get to voice concerns and suggestions for improvement on the idea that those who want the harder overland content slowly put together. In the end, find a place that leaves both sides getting something, but not necessarily everything they want. And who knows, maybe if we all stop just shooting each other down, and work together, we might come up with something that everyone can be happy with. We have a lot of very passionate, skilled and capable people in this thread who all have some brilliant ideas, and these can be found on both sides of the debate. So, why not work together and construct something we can then turn over to the devs to see what they do with?

Obviously we would have to go in with the understanding that nothing may end up happening, and that there are complexities that we simply do not know about. However, if all we do is to continue to argue, then the only thing this will ever turn into is a place that the moderators have to frequently stop fights in. So, given the fact that neither side is willing to back down, why not compromise?

SilverBride

Tornaad wrote: »

So, given the fact that neither side is willing to back down, why not compromise?

Some of us from both sides of this debate have already done that.

I personally think overland is fine just as it is and do not think anything needs to be changed, yet I support debuffs and challenge banners for quest bosses, that I would never use myself, in a good faith effort to make the game more enjoyable for others.

And some who do want more difficulty also support these same things and are not just stuck on the idea of a separate veteran overland or nothing.

Sennecca

For final quest boss challenge, I why couldn't sigils be added to the room with the fight allowing people who want less of a challenge to pick them up and decide how much of a challenge they want? Similar to Vma, but lasting the entire fight. Less damage taken, more damage done, more healing etc. Those who want the ultimate challenge go without sigils, and those who want less can take every one, those in between take one or two. Simple to add, simple to use. Or a simple challenge scroll similar to a dungeon boss that adds a mechanic or two in to be dealt with vs the basic boss.

Sennecca

vsrs_au wrote: »

I just thought I'd mention my idea, and rephrase it for more clarity. I mentioned it many pages ago, but the newer visitors to this thread may not have seen it. Even though it was basically rubbished by the handful of posters alluded to above, I still think it's worth reiterating:

Instead of creating an optional veteran mode for overland, ZOS could simply introduce tougher mobs and/or mini-bosses in small areas of overland that aren't otherwise used for anything else. There are many such areas. To make these areas more attractive, the loot could be scaled up a little bit in value.
Those who wish to enter and accept something a bit more challenging may do so, while those unwilling to participate may simply bypass these areas. It's an easy and low-impact solution that shouldn't require rewriting big sections of code.

This could be a good idea, but restricts part of the map e based on player ability. The player base is made up of younger people with fast movement & reflexes as well as other people who may have a health or other reason that prevents them from being able to pull the damage and reactions needed for high difficulty fights. I wouldn't feel excluded, but some might, and I think that this would prevent this from being implemented. That said, sometimes I just want to farm mats and chests etc, and love that I can just clear mobs very quickly to get to where Im going, and sometimes I'd like a good challenge. I like to have fights where I have to stop and figure out what I could do different/better to beat something and then having the I did it moment. That "I did it moment" is very much missing from the overland areas. Then one must question, If the playerbase that's currently playing doesn't want it? What of the people who use to play or might play if there was a bit more of an option for challenge in every day gameplay? The difficulty for the devs is finding that I did it moment for the entire spectrum of players in overland.

Tornaad

SilverBride wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

So, given the fact that neither side is willing to back down, why not compromise?

Some of us from both sides of this debate have already done that.

I personally think overland is fine just as it is and do not think anything needs to be changed, yet I support debuffs and challenge banners for quest bosses, that I would never use myself, in a good faith effort to make the game more enjoyable for others.

And some who do want more difficulty also support these same things and are not just stuck on the idea of a separate veteran overland or nothing.

A compromise I would be fine with is to leave the actual overland untouched, but for delves and public dungeons, add an Undaunted hard mode scroll outside of them. When you do that on a delve, you go into a private instance where only those in your party can enter and reading of the scroll makes all of the monsters in the dungeon, and for public dungeons, when you read the hard mode scroll, it puts you into the public hard mode instance of the dungeon.

The scroll could either buff the monsters, debuff you, or some combination thereof.

SilverBride

Sennecca wrote: »

...sometimes I just want to farm mats and chests etc, and love that I can just clear mobs very quickly to get to where Im going, and sometimes I'd like a good challenge.

That is exactly why there is challenging content in the game in the first place, and I'm not just referring to veteran dungeons and trials. Overland has World Bosses and Harrowstorms and Geysers and Vents, and some zones have traveling World Bosses. There are also River Trolls and Giant Camps and other such mobs that aren't a great challenge but are more difficult than the average trash mobs. The challenge is already there.

Elsonso

Tornaad wrote: »

A compromise I would be fine with is to leave the actual overland untouched, but for delves and public dungeons, add an Undaunted hard mode scroll outside of them. When you do that on a delve, you go into a private instance where only those in your party can enter and reading of the scroll makes all of the monsters in the dungeon, and for public dungeons, when you read the hard mode scroll, it puts you into the public hard mode instance of the dungeon.

The main problem with "compromises" is that the goal is to ensure that everyone suffers in some manner.

That ends up being the crux of the problem. All solutions that I can see, most of which have been presented in here, involve some form of compromise. If ZOS does this, they get to pick who suffers more, and who suffers less. We do not really have a seat at that table. They will likely pick one where the studio suffers minimally, or not at all, as they are the stakeholder. That means that the bulk of the "compromise" will be the burden of the players.

The problem with split instances boils down to the compromise. The biggest compromise that I see for the players is that players are removed from the game world. It does not matter which side of the instance wall people are on, the people on the other side are simply no longer in the game world. Switching sides does not fix this, it just changes who is no longer in the game world.

This is one of the things they fixed when they introduced One Tamriel.

The compromise, at the time of One Tamriel, was that overland had a uniform difficulty, and the benefit is that all of the players were together in the same game world. They moved the difficulty to dungeons and trials and left them separate, inaccessible to those outside of their little bubble.

If ZOS introduces veteran zones, or instanced difficulty delves and public dungeons, some of that compromise gets rolled back. The cases where players are in the same game, but not the same game world, will increase. In this case, we will end up with people split by some slider or in-game configuration rather than a quest state.

Some people are willing to accept that compromise, but it is a compromise. By definition, someone has to make concessions so that someone else can get what they want. As I said above, we can be reasonably certain that ZOS will not be the one making concessions. It will be the players.

What this boils down for the players, in aggregate, is how many are willing to give up something wanted by one part of the community so that another part of the community can get what they want?

More than that, will the players be happy if ZOS is the one who decides who gives up what?

spartaxoxo

Elsonso wrote: »

Some people are willing to accept that compromise, but it is a compromise. By definition, someone has to make concessions so that someone else can get what they want. As I said above, we can be reasonably certain that ZOS will not be the one making concessions. It will be the players.

If they used a slider the way LOTRO does, players would not be in a separate instance. The tradeoff instead would be the level of complexity available would be decreased.

Tornaad

Elsonso wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

A compromise I would be fine with is to leave the actual overland untouched, but for delves and public dungeons, add an Undaunted hard mode scroll outside of them. When you do that on a delve, you go into a private instance where only those in your party can enter and reading of the scroll makes all of the monsters in the dungeon, and for public dungeons, when you read the hard mode scroll, it puts you into the public hard mode instance of the dungeon.

The main problem with "compromises" is that the goal is to ensure that everyone suffers in some manner.

That is one way to look at it. I look at it this way, if you have two groups of people that simply will not agree, unless both parties are willing to compromise, then it means either no one will get anything, or one will completely lose. With a compromise while no one gets exactly what they want, everyone gets some of what they want.

And you're right, we really do not have a seat at the table, but, if we can find something we can agree on, and turn this from now 160 pages of two groups proving that we are never going to completely agree, to find something that we can, at least in part agree on, then that might send some kind of message.

Elsonso

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Some people are willing to accept that compromise, but it is a compromise. By definition, someone has to make concessions so that someone else can get what they want. As I said above, we can be reasonably certain that ZOS will not be the one making concessions. It will be the players.

If they used a slider the way LOTRO does, players would not be in a separate instance. The tradeoff instead would be the level of complexity available would be decreased.

Yup. Sliders come with different compromises, for example, around equity of rewards and the risk-reward value of the work. What might be interesting here is that ZOS may feel that their sacrifices in this matter remove sliders as an option that they would consider.

Tornaad wrote: »

And you're right, we really do not have a seat at the table, but, if we can find something we can agree on, and turn this from now 160 pages of two groups proving that we are never going to completely agree, to find something that we can, at least in part agree on, then that might send some kind of message.

ZOS has said multiple times that they are not interested in solutions from the players. They want to hear problems and will do their own solutions. They just want us to be nice about how we go about explaining the problems.

Relative to this thread, I have said it before, but will repeat... nothing new has been said in here for a very long time. ZOS may be paying attention to this, but I have to question whether anything of value is mined from our continued words of wisdom on this matter.

I am in here because I appreciate the tenacity and stamina from some of the participants, as well as the overall subject being interesting to banter about and discuss. I have no illusions that anything said in here is important on any scale larger than simply not getting banned.

If ZOS does something about overland, it will be their thing and their solution. I have no doubts that it will be either very controversial or largely ignored. Nothing in-between.

Tornaad

Elsonso wrote: »

ZOS has said multiple times that they are not interested in solutions from the players. They want to hear problems and will do their own solutions. They just want us to be nice about how we go about explaining the problems.

I have seen @ZOS_Kevin on multiple occasions reply to users on the forums thanking them for their suggestions and passing them along.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7814544#Comment_7814544

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7810061#Comment_7810061

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7810026#Comment_7810026

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7810025#Comment_7810025 (this one is actually a comment or two down from the link)

That sounds like they value player feedback. Now, do they copy it exactly? No. But they don't have to. They can use the idea that we generate, flesh it out, make tweaks as needed based on the limits of the engine and other similar things, and then go from there.

spartaxoxo

Elsonso wrote: »

Yup. Sliders come with different compromises, for example, around equity of rewards and the risk-reward value of the work. What might be interesting here is that ZOS may feel that their sacrifices in this matter remove sliders as an option that they would consider.

I'm unsure what you mean by equity of reward? All players always receive the same drops from Overland. The only exception is when there are a ton of players attacking the same world boss. It's kind of a weird exception at this point. If a level 30 player gets drops from my level almost 2K CP hero when she does the vast majority of the damage, I don't it's an issue if I get drops the other way around. At the end of the day anyone who did at least 3% damage (which is the reward threshold iirc) did contribute to a kill.

The slider could give them increased gold gain, exp, or even %chance to drop something nice like meticulous disassembly does.

Elsonso

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Yup. Sliders come with different compromises, for example, around equity of rewards and the risk-reward value of the work. What might be interesting here is that ZOS may feel that their sacrifices in this matter remove sliders as an option that they would consider.

I'm unsure what you mean by equity of reward? All players always receive the same drops from Overland. The only exception is when there are a ton of players attacking the same world boss. It's kind of a weird exception at this point. If a level 30 player gets drops from my level almost 2K CP hero when she does the vast majority of the damage, I don't it's an issue if I get drops the other way around. At the end of the day anyone who did at least 3% damage (which is the reward threshold iirc) did contribute to a kill.

The slider could give them increased gold gain, exp, or even %chance to drop something nice like meticulous disassembly does.

Equity of reward means that the easy player and hard player are getting rewards equal to the difficulty. Accounting for that difficulty, the rewards are equal.

If all players always receive the same drops from Overland, then people with the slider set to "nightmare" are getting 10 gold, a pair of gloves, and two onions as a reward. The person who has the slider set to "I'm too young to die" gets 10 gold, a pair of shoes, and 2 carrots. In this case, the person wanting harder overland is getting less loot, relative to difficulty, as a compromise. It will not take long for these people to find their way to the forum and ask for better loot that matches the difficulty. Hopefully, that forum thread does not hit 160 pages.

If the player in the harder slider position gets better loot than the person in the person set to easier, then exploiting becomes more of an issue than what we have today. Mr NIghtmare tags the boss, then waits for "don't kill me" to finish it off, and collects superior XP and loot for little effort. Yes, similar can be done today, but today the loot is more equitable. In a slider world, with better loot, this will be a well-used exploit for leveling characters. If ZOS addresses this, then someone has to compromise something. Whatever ZOS comes up with to fix it will be a penalty. If ZOS does nothing to fix it, then it is ZOS that is compromising, and I would not expect that to happen.

There is also a bigger picture issue. Games are about risks and rewards, so obviously, many players are going to choose the lowest risk with the highest reward. Pretty sure that Lambert described this as "lazy", but in a nice way.

If the player in "I'm too young to die" only gets 10g per kill and the player in "Nightmare" gets 20g per kill, one would think that is equitable. At least, a starting point. However, if the easier player kills 10 mobs for every one that the harder player kills, the net is that the easier player earns 5x more gold, all other things being equal. Same applies to XP and any other rewards. Easier=Better. Harder=Worse. What exactly is the reward for being in hard mode, besides challenge?

On the other hand, if the rewards are set up so that the harder content is better for rewards, then players are going to feel obligated to use it or they will be left behind the curve. The streamers and guides will be out there saying that the first thing new players need to do is find that slider and set it to "Nightmare", and players of all skill will do that. Some will find the game harder and more challenging, but many may struggle because they have the slider set wrong. If they struggle too much, they may quit. If they slide it back to "I'm too young to die" they will go through the game thinking that they are leveling and earning rewards slower than everyone else. I guess that is OK, but my guess is that such approval will not be ubiquitous.

Even a slider has compromises. ZOS can emphasize or minimize any of these things, but it is still going to be a compromise for someone. At best, people can say that XYZ isn't a big issue, or won't be a big issue, but chances are it is, or will be, to someone.

Agenericname

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.

I certainly wouldn't argue that if ZOS were to come up with a solution to this that we would all be happy, or any of us really, but they never sold AWA that way. They said right out the gate that they couldn't accomplish what they what they needed to and give us an option. To me that says that what ever drove this was functional/utility on their end with a "players asked for this" tag attached to it. I believe that they stated as much.

In most of the game there are options; Vet/normal dungeons, arenas, and trials. And there's even an additional layer of difficulty on top of that, hard modes. ToT has ranked, unranked, and NPC matches. PvP has solo BGs, group BGs, Cyrodiil and the IC. Cyrodiil can be further divided into CP, non-CP, faction locked and not.

I certainly believe that if they were to do something like this it would indeed be optional.

Aardappelboom

Elsonso wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Yup. Sliders come with different compromises, for example, around equity of rewards and the risk-reward value of the work. What might be interesting here is that ZOS may feel that their sacrifices in this matter remove sliders as an option that they would consider.

I'm unsure what you mean by equity of reward? All players always receive the same drops from Overland. The only exception is when there are a ton of players attacking the same world boss. It's kind of a weird exception at this point. If a level 30 player gets drops from my level almost 2K CP hero when she does the vast majority of the damage, I don't it's an issue if I get drops the other way around. At the end of the day anyone who did at least 3% damage (which is the reward threshold iirc) did contribute to a kill.

The slider could give them increased gold gain, exp, or even %chance to drop something nice like meticulous disassembly does.

Equity of reward means that the easy player and hard player are getting rewards equal to the difficulty. Accounting for that difficulty, the rewards are equal.

If all players always receive the same drops from Overland, then people with the slider set to "nightmare" are getting 10 gold, a pair of gloves, and two onions as a reward. The person who has the slider set to "I'm too young to die" gets 10 gold, a pair of shoes, and 2 carrots. In this case, the person wanting harder overland is getting less loot, relative to difficulty, as a compromise. It will not take long for these people to find their way to the forum and ask for better loot that matches the difficulty. Hopefully, that forum thread does not hit 160 pages.

If the player in the harder slider position gets better loot than the person in the person set to easier, then exploiting becomes more of an issue than what we have today. Mr NIghtmare tags the boss, then waits for "don't kill me" to finish it off, and collects superior XP and loot for little effort. Yes, similar can be done today, but today the loot is more equitable. In a slider world, with better loot, this will be a well-used exploit for leveling characters. If ZOS addresses this, then someone has to compromise something. Whatever ZOS comes up with to fix it will be a penalty. If ZOS does nothing to fix it, then it is ZOS that is compromising, and I would not expect that to happen.

There is also a bigger picture issue. Games are about risks and rewards, so obviously, many players are going to choose the lowest risk with the highest reward. Pretty sure that Lambert described this as "lazy", but in a nice way.

If the player in "I'm too young to die" only gets 10g per kill and the player in "Nightmare" gets 20g per kill, one would think that is equitable. At least, a starting point. However, if the easier player kills 10 mobs for every one that the harder player kills, the net is that the easier player earns 5x more gold, all other things being equal. Same applies to XP and any other rewards. Easier=Better. Harder=Worse. What exactly is the reward for being in hard mode, besides challenge?

On the other hand, if the rewards are set up so that the harder content is better for rewards, then players are going to feel obligated to use it or they will be left behind the curve. The streamers and guides will be out there saying that the first thing new players need to do is find that slider and set it to "Nightmare", and players of all skill will do that. Some will find the game harder and more challenging, but many may struggle because they have the slider set wrong. If they struggle too much, they may quit. If they slide it back to "I'm too young to die" they will go through the game thinking that they are leveling and earning rewards slower than everyone else. I guess that is OK, but my guess is that such approval will not be ubiquitous.

Even a slider has compromises. ZOS can emphasize or minimize any of these things, but it is still going to be a compromise for someone. At best, people can say that XYZ isn't a big issue, or won't be a big issue, but chances are it is, or will be, to someone.

I'm all for optional difficulty sliders but I don't need any extra rewards and I don't care if the slider is a debuff in disguise, I would even welcome that. It's also in no way hard to program and it would make some of the stories and DLCs more valuable for some players.

I don't get why this reward argument even comes up, I don't see anyone saying that more difficulty should grant extra rewards, I just see people that are bored with overland as it is now and want to tweak that experience through added difficulty. People mostly just want Skyrim and there's no extra reward in completing Skyrim on hard, well except maybe for an achievement.

I also feel that the stories are a bit stale without a bit of challenge, and saying we "should just skip it" if we don't like it, like @SilverBride suggest, is not a very good suggestions for a game that is part of the Elder Scrolls franchise and offers thousand of hours of story (which I enjoy, I might add) . This is (mostly) not about some elite gamers wanting to show off their skills, this is about players who like elder scrolls being able to enjoy the story at its best. We all like playing these kind of games single player, and the overland quests very much mimic a single player experience and I know of no games that don't offer this.

Also, I've seen a lot of naysayers being very much ok with optional difficulty, the big no go's are mostly seperated instances and forced difficulty.

It would help if people lead with what they're okay with and then continue with ifs and buts instead of the heated yes and no dicussions that take place in this thread.

The only fact is that there's clearly two sides to this, so either you ignore one side or you add something that works for both. In the end, the only thing to check wether or not it's worth it, is for ZOS to send out a survey.

TaSheen

I didn't read anything about AWA because achievements are totally unimportant to me. So I only know what friends told me (and are still saying). They've never mentioned anything about the devs saying stuff like that. *shrug*

If it turns out optional fine and dandy. If it doesn't turn out optional fine and dandy. I will manage whatever.

SilverBride

Aardappelboom wrote: »

I also feel that the stories are a bit stale without a bit of challenge, and saying we "should just skip it" if we don't like it, like @SilverBride suggest, is not a very good suggestions for a game that is part of the Elder Scrolls franchise and offers thousand of hours of story (which I enjoy, I might add)

I never told players to "just skip it" but I have said we should do the things we enjoy. I enjoy overland and questing so I spend a lot of time doing that. I don't enjoy group dungeons or trials or veteran content so I don't do them.

Very few players will enjoy every single thing about any MMO, which is why there is varied content. There is something for everyone but it will never be everything for everyone.

In the case of wanting more difficult questing and story zones because some find overland boring... if this was really a wide spread opinion the game would be suffering because of it. But it's been this way for 7 years now and is doing fine.

Agenericname

TaSheen wrote: »

I didn't read anything about AWA because achievements are totally unimportant to me. So I only know what friends told me (and are still saying). They've never mentioned anything about the devs saying stuff like that. *shrug*

If it turns out optional fine and dandy. If it doesn't turn out optional fine and dandy. I will manage whatever.

Here's the link to the thread if you're interested.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/598865/account-wide-achievements-q-a

I'm also one of those people who weren't happy with the implementation, but, like I said, they had other reasons for it. They do "options" reasonably well.

Elsonso

Aardappelboom wrote: »

The only fact is that there's clearly two sides to this, so either you ignore one side or you add something that works for both. In the end, the only thing to check wether or not it's worth it, is for ZOS to send out a survey.

There are more than two sides, so if ZOS sends out surveys, hopefully they account for that.

I have no confidence at all that ZOS can do this without alienating some group of players that probably is not alienated right now.

Honestly, it is fairly clear that their safest choice is to do nothing, as the group that is already annoyed is already annoyed and by placating that group, they will just annoy someone else. Worse, they may not actually placate all the people who are currently annoyed. In the end, the only thing I am sure they will accomplish is stirring up a hornet's nest.

TaSheen

Elsonso wrote: »

Aardappelboom wrote: »

The only fact is that there's clearly two sides to this, so either you ignore one side or you add something that works for both. In the end, the only thing to check wether or not it's worth it, is for ZOS to send out a survey.

There are more than two sides, so if ZOS sends out surveys, hopefully they account for that.

I have no confidence at all that ZOS can do this without alienating some group of players that probably is not alienated right now.

Honestly, it is fairly clear that their safest choice is to do nothing, as the group that is already annoyed is already annoyed and by placating that group, they will just annoy someone else. Worse, they may not actually placate all the people who are currently annoyed. In the end, the only thing I am sure they will accomplish is stirring up a hornet's nest.

Quite.

spartaxoxo

Elsonso wrote: »

If the player in the harder slider position gets better loot than the person in the person set to easier, then exploiting becomes more of an issue than what we have today.

I seriously doubt anyone would sit there and camp a boss for purple shoes instead of green. And then wait around for someone else to show up because they don't actually want to kill anything. The overland sets are mostly not even good and abundantly available.

If they were farming exp they'd want to farm large amounts of mobs by themselves or in a very small group to maximize their exp gains. It takes more time to kill a tougher mob so obviously the exp gain has to go up too, otherwise their exp earned would go down. If they managed to somehow kill just as fast with a debuff as without it, that player earned it imo.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If they were farming exp they'd want to farm large amounts of mobs by themselves or in a very small group to maximize their exp gains. It takes more time to kill a tougher mob so obviously the exp gain has to go up too, otherwise their exp earned would go down. If they managed to somehow kill just as fast with a debuff as without it, that player earned it imo.

Why would they be using veteran overland to farm experience? That is way less immersive and way more boring than actually enjoying the story in the current overland.

Elsonso

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If they were farming exp they'd want to farm large amounts of mobs by themselves or in a very small group to maximize their exp gains. It takes more time to kill a tougher mob so obviously the exp gain has to go up too, otherwise their exp earned would go down. If they managed to somehow kill just as fast with a debuff as without it, that player earned it imo.

Why would they be using veteran overland to farm experience? That is way less immersive and way more boring than actually enjoying the story in the current overland.

The only reason I would use veteran overland for any farming activity is if the gain from farming exceeds the effort from the harder content.

Ideally, I would want to stand in the bank and cast a spell that just insta-killed everything in the zone, collected all the zone XP, loot, resource nodes, and chests, and just deposited it directly into the bank, crafting bag, or inventory.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If they were farming exp they'd want to farm large amounts of mobs by themselves or in a very small group to maximize their exp gains. It takes more time to kill a tougher mob so obviously the exp gain has to go up too, otherwise their exp earned would go down. If they managed to somehow kill just as fast with a debuff as without it, that player earned it imo.

Why would they be using veteran overland to farm experience? That is way less immersive and way more boring than actually enjoying the story in the current overland.

They wouldn't imo. I was responding to the idea it would be an exp exploit. I don't think anyone would waste their time that way, and even if they did they'd have earned it.

The ones in other games just boost the exp enough to make it so the player doesn't lose exp just because they are killing slower.

Elsonso

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If they were farming exp they'd want to farm large amounts of mobs by themselves or in a very small group to maximize their exp gains. It takes more time to kill a tougher mob so obviously the exp gain has to go up too, otherwise their exp earned would go down. If they managed to somehow kill just as fast with a debuff as without it, that player earned it imo.

Why would they be using veteran overland to farm experience? That is way less immersive and way more boring than actually enjoying the story in the current overland.

They wouldn't imo. I was responding to the idea it would be an exp exploit. I don't think anyone would waste their time that way, and even if they did they'd have earned it.

The XP exploit for bonus veteran slider settings would be a simple carry. The experienced player would set themselves in "I'm too young to die" while the inexperienced/new player would set themselves to "Nightmare". The experienced player should be able to make quick work of just about anything in the zone while the new player gets bonus XP for doing little more than staying alive.

It would not be something that is new. There are carries today. It would be more effective than what we have today, though.

Blackbird_V

I just want to point some things out:

Point 1: It's not about questing, but overland in its entirety

---

This is not just about the story. Overland, questing or not, is dull for me. Even if I do all quests on a character in Vet Overland I would still utilise it when I am traversing the world for whatever reason. It'd be nice to actually do more than sitting in a small corner spamming vDungeon and Trials for once.

Point 2: Overland & questing is not solely the base game

---

@SilverBride: You keep saying that overland is base game. You are incorrect.

Dungeons:
Fungal Grotto (I & II)
Spindleclutch (I & II)
The Banished Cells (I & II)
Darkshade Caverns (I & II)
Elden Hollow (I & II)
Wayrest Sewers (I & II)
Arx Corinium
City of Ash (I & II)
Crypt of Hearts (I & II)
Direfrost Keep
Tempest Island
Volenfell
Blackheart Haven
Blessed Crucible
Selene's Web
Vaults of Madness
Imperial City Prisonᵃ
White-Gold Towerᵃ

Trials (Raids):
Aetherian Archive
Hel Ra Citadel
Sanctum Ophidia
Halls of Frabrication²

Notes:

1) ᵃ | Available for free to all players since 5ᵗʰ September, 2019. [1]
2) ᵇ | Available for free to all players since 6ᵗʰ April 2022. [2]

These dungeons and Raids mentioned above you get right away when 'buy' the game (Notes 1 & 2 you probably need to go into the clown store to get for free though, I do not know.). They are part of the base package - they are base game. Are you really saying still to this day that base game is overland/story only?

Point 3: Why some of us end-game players think overland/questing sucks

---

Again, @SilverBride: You've mentioned that you've never touched veteran content - you stick to solo/normal mode content. [snip]

Veteran dungeons ones are more heavy on mechanical play (even more so for DLC dungeons) than their normal mode variant. Many mechanics you see in mormal mode are heavily toned down (or non-existent in some cases) compared to veteran. Then you need to factor in the increased damage and health -- I give a bit more detail here. Normal mode is basically overland tier difficulty, with some dungeon successors/extensions like City of Ash II being more like public dungeon difficulty, but with bosses being overland boss difficulty.

[snip (editing- blackbird)] **** Re-wording what removed: As you've stated: you have a lack of interest in veteran content, nor have done any of it. I feel as if your opposition to us is unfair, as I feel you cannot fully empathise with us. When you have experience in veteran dungeons and raids (especially hard modes) you become more mechanically-inclined with your own ability. You see a hostile RGBA indicator on the floor you move. It feels good to. You see an enemy channelling an attack? You interrupt it, and feels good to. You become so more involved with the game, and it becomes second nature. Then after all this experience you go and walk around the overland and just think 'wth is this?' because you realise how ridiculously easy it is: you can skip and tank basically every mechanic, sit in RGBA disco threat indicator because it does literally nothing. It's boring.

You seem pro-debuff as an option, and that brings me to my last point with a counterargument to you...

Point 4: Self-debuffs are NOT a viable option

---

@SilverBride, Quote from April 2022:

SilverBride wrote: »

BIackHand wrote: »

Eldenring, TES: oblivion, skyrim, morrowind, gothic 1-3 and the majority of singleplayer games with normal not braindead eso overland difficulty are boring?

Imagine those games on eso overland difficulty. They would flop without exception.

Single player games. Games where there is only one player so nothing that player does will affect anyone else. That is not the case in an MMO.

We've stated it before that if we use self-debuffs, anyone can just come along, press 1 force pulse and kill what we're killing. It's not viable. That debuff did nothing for us.

So my question to you is: does that statement hold true? Because if so then I'd like you to explain this: if in the scenario they implement a self-debuff feature and I use it, and then along came someone else (who didn't use it) to the thing(s) I am attacking and 1 shot them, then what they hypothetically did was effectively ruin my experience with a feature for harder content. How is that fair or even a viable solution?

In this case, the statement: "[...] Games where there is only one player so nothing that the player does will affect anyone else. That is not the case in an MMO." is false because this IS an MMO and what players do can affect me, and in the hypothetical situation above it had a negative impact.

With, and I must state again, optional veteran overland instances, that cannot be the case. Everyone is at the same base difficulty and I'm not crucioing myself by making myself weaker around others who may not chose to. It'd be no issue if they came along and attacked things I was attacking then.

---

[edited for baiting]
Post ZoS "snipping": Edited to reword what was censored.

Original snips Moderated by @ZOS_Icy

TaSheen

Blackbird_V wrote: »

....crucioing ....

Sorry, I'm not understanding that word?

[Edit - ah, you edited after I posted....]

spartaxoxo

Elsonso wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If they were farming exp they'd want to farm large amounts of mobs by themselves or in a very small group to maximize their exp gains. It takes more time to kill a tougher mob so obviously the exp gain has to go up too, otherwise their exp earned would go down. If they managed to somehow kill just as fast with a debuff as without it, that player earned it imo.

Why would they be using veteran overland to farm experience? That is way less immersive and way more boring than actually enjoying the story in the current overland.

They wouldn't imo. I was responding to the idea it would be an exp exploit. I don't think anyone would waste their time that way, and even if they did they'd have earned it.

The XP exploit for bonus veteran slider settings would be a simple carry. The experienced player would set themselves in "I'm too young to die" while the inexperienced/new player would set themselves to "Nightmare". The experienced player should be able to make quick work of just about anything in the zone while the new player gets bonus XP for doing little more than staying alive.

It would not be something that is new. There are carries today. It would be more effective than what we have today, though.

Why would it be more effective than what we have today? Selling carries is not an exploit imo