Overland Content Feedback Thread

Elsonso

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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

It is simple when XP is boosted for doing "hard" (aka Nightmare setting) content and combat is easier when the game is set to "I'm too young to die" setting. In this game, all participants get XP, so all the "hard" player has to do it tag the boss/mob just enough to get the XP. Because the XP is boosted, they get more XP. But wait! There's more! The whole point of veteran overland is that it is too easy for experienced players. Since the game is easy for the "easy mode" player, the experienced player will be able to take down mobs fast while the "hard" player rakes in extra XP for being in hard mode and not doing anything. Thus, it is more effective than what we have today.

If ZOS implements an "easier" side to the difficulty slider that makes the game even easier than it is today, this amplifies the issue by allowing the experienced player to be more effective at "one shotting" the mobs.

Today, ZOS can ignore carries. If there is a difficulty slider, my guess is that they will have to step in. To fix this, ZOS will have to nerf the hard mode XP to prevent this sort of thing from happening. However, doing that in a bad way will reduce the benefit of hard mode for players who are not doing carries.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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

In my opinion carries are a form of cheating because the player is getting achievements and other things they did not really earn themselves.

spartaxoxo

Elsonso wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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

It is simple when XP is boosted for doing "hard" (aka Nightmare setting) content and combat is easier when the game is set to "I'm too young to die" setting. In this game, all participants get XP, so all the "hard" player has to do it tag the boss/mob just enough to get the XP. Because the XP is boosted, they get more XP. But wait! There's more! The whole point of veteran overland is that it is too easy for experienced players. Since the game is easy for the "easy mode" player, the experienced player will be able to take down mobs fast while the "hard" player rakes in extra XP for being in hard mode and not doing anything. Thus, it is more effective than what we have today.

The stuff we have is faster not just because of ease but because of mob density and reset rate. They don't need to step in because some people level quickly. The game is designed in such a way that level doesn't matter that much.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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

In my opinion carries are a form of cheating because the player is getting achievements and other things they did not really earn themselves.

They are getting them from a group that did earn them. If a high level wants to sell their services, it's no different than crafting someone armor they can't craft themselves. IMO any group can set any requirements that they want for a member, and if they want is for the group member to bring lots of coin because they are already good on damage, healing, and tanking, then more power to them.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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

In my opinion carries are a form of cheating because the player is getting achievements and other things they did not really earn themselves.

They are getting them from a group that did earn them. If a high level wants to sell their services, it's no different than crafting someone armor they can't craft themselves. IMO any group can set any requirements that they want for a member, and if they want is for the group member to bring lots of coin because they are already good on damage, healing, and tanking, then more power to them.

I don't agree. There is a big difference in someone crafting a set of very basic gear for someone to get started with, and getting achievements that weren't earned that will then allow that player into groups for content they really aren't skilled enough for. I've seen threads complaining about this.

Blackbird_V

TaSheen wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

....crucioing ....

Sorry, I'm not understanding that word?

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

Crucio, from harry potter. Basically omega torture.

colossalvoids

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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

In my opinion carries are a form of cheating because the player is getting achievements and other things they did not really earn themselves.

They are getting them from a group that did earn them. If a high level wants to sell their services, it's no different than crafting someone armor they can't craft themselves. IMO any group can set any requirements that they want for a member, and if they want is for the group member to bring lots of coin because they are already good on damage, healing, and tanking, then more power to them.

I don't agree. There is a big difference in someone crafting a set of very basic gear for someone to get started with, and getting achievements that weren't earned that will then allow that player into groups for content they really aren't skilled enough for. I've seen threads complaining about this.

It's still just getting a service, just a different scale. It's immersive even, getting bunch of mercs or being one for hire. Has nothing to do with cheating, same as crown trading, no matter if everyone agrees. Devs are perfectly aware and are in some such discords.

Personally I'm not really liking this but that's me and my views on earning of achievements and devaluation. Endgame players, especially ones alienated from other activities, have not much means to make enough gold to raid by raiding alone so that's making raiding at least profitable to sustain your activity whilst even providing comfortable play.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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

In my opinion carries are a form of cheating because the player is getting achievements and other things they did not really earn themselves.

They are getting them from a group that did earn them. If a high level wants to sell their services, it's no different than crafting someone armor they can't craft themselves. IMO any group can set any requirements that they want for a member, and if they want is for the group member to bring lots of coin because they are already good on damage, healing, and tanking, then more power to them.

I don't agree. There is a big difference in someone crafting a set of very basic gear for someone to get started with, and getting achievements that weren't earned that will then allow that player into groups for content they really aren't skilled enough for. I've seen threads complaining about this.

I do agree that people trying to claim they got an achievement through skill when it's actually coin is an issue. It has a lot of negative repercussions for the groups they ruin.

I don't however think that means that buying runs is an exploit.

Some do it for that reason. But others just do it because they wanted a cosmetic and this is the only way they were gonna get it.

I don't see it much different to the fake tank thing.

If a DPS queues as a tank but slots a taunt and at least tries to keep things still, I don't have a problem with that. If a DPS queues as a tank but refuses to slot a taunt, I do take issue with that.

Likewise, if someone buys a run just to enjoy a mount, I don't have a problem with that. I'd personally never do it because it would ruin the whole thing for me, but I understand it wouldn't for others. And it's nice to me that raiders can earn some coin doing what they enjoy. If someone buys a run then tries to use that run to misrepresent their skill level, I do take issue with that.

But that's just my personal opinion.

TaSheen

Blackbird_V wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

....crucioing ....

Sorry, I'm not understanding that word?

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

Crucio, from harry potter. Basically omega torture.

Oh, got it. Must be time to reread Harry again....

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I do agree that people trying to claim they got an achievement through skill when it's actually coin is an issue. It has a lot of negative repercussions for the groups they ruin.

I don't however think that means that buying runs is an exploit.

Some do it for that reason. But others just do it because they wanted a cosmetic and this is the only way they were gonna get it.

I don't see it much different to the fake tank thing.

If a DPS queues as a tank but slots a taunt and at least tries to keep things still, I don't have a problem with that. If a DPS queues as a tank but refuses to slot a taunt, I do take issue with that.

Likewise, if someone buys a run just to enjoy a mount, I don't have a problem with that. I'd personally never do it because it would ruin the whole thing for me, but I understand it wouldn't for others. And it's nice to me that raiders can earn some coin doing what they enjoy. If someone buys a run then tries to use that run to misrepresent their skill level, I do take issue with that.

But that's just my personal opinion.

I wouldn't mind getting some of the achievements and items and gear from veteran content either but I haven't developed my characters for that, and I will not pay someone to do the work for me.

I used to be an avid raider in other games so I know the kind of preparation that is needed. I worked hard for the rewards I earned and contributed to the group.

This same type of thing could happen with a veteran overland. Powerful players could bring low level players over and level them for a fee, especially if there is a higher experience gain in veteran overland.

ZoS may not see this as a cheat or take action against it, and that is their prerogative, but I do.

Blackbird_V

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I do agree that people trying to claim they got an achievement through skill when it's actually coin is an issue. It has a lot of negative repercussions for the groups they ruin.

I don't however think that means that buying runs is an exploit.

Some do it for that reason. But others just do it because they wanted a cosmetic and this is the only way they were gonna get it.

I don't see it much different to the fake tank thing.

If a DPS queues as a tank but slots a taunt and at least tries to keep things still, I don't have a problem with that. If a DPS queues as a tank but refuses to slot a taunt, I do take issue with that.

Likewise, if someone buys a run just to enjoy a mount, I don't have a problem with that. I'd personally never do it because it would ruin the whole thing for me, but I understand it wouldn't for others. And it's nice to me that raiders can earn some coin doing what they enjoy. If someone buys a run then tries to use that run to misrepresent their skill level, I do take issue with that.

But that's just my personal opinion.

I wouldn't mind getting some of the achievements and items and gear from veteran content either but I haven't developed my characters for that, and I will not pay someone to do the work for me.

I used to be an avid raider in other games so I know the kind of preparation that is needed. I worked hard for the rewards I earned and contributed to the group.

This same type of thing could happen with a veteran overland. Powerful players could bring low level players over and level them for a fee, especially if there is a higher experience gain in veteran overland.

ZoS may not see this as a cheat or take action against it, and that is their perogative, but I do.

This has been going on for years, and ZoS has never, ever, addressed it. I wish they would, however. As for the experience farming, normal blackrose prison farm is like level 1-50 in 2 hours or something ridiculous. There is also the Enchanting/Provisioning/Alchemy Writs that can be all done in bulk and get you to level 50 really easily, albeit at a high cost. That can easily be done in 2-3 hours. I do not think a veteran overland exp farm could possibly beat either. A good compromise might be outright disabling anyone under level 50 & 160 CP from entering veteran overland.

adamcavillb16_ESO

This comment doesn't follow on from anything in this thread and I can only imagine that something similar has already been said in the 160 pages of comments that precede it. However, as this thread is called Overland Feedback I'd still like to leave some.

I've been playing ESO off and on since launch. I have accounts with 900-1000 CP on the NA and EU servers. I've gotten as far as starting Veteran Trials and finished some of the veteran solo content.

I thought I might come back to ESO. I have mostly forgotten how to play so I rolled a new character, a nightblade, and entered the High Isles. I fought a few random guys on the way to a quest delve. I thought it was a bit weird that my health bar didn't move but just wrote it off to overland being tuned to be easy. I then went into a delve and noticed even if I did nothing when fighting one or two mobs that my health bar didn't go down at all. I then ran further into the delve and pulled about 6 or 7 mobs. I wanted to see what would happen. I stood there with my level 4 character with starter armor on and no CP points assigned without taking any significant damage. I then discovered I could run through the entire delve without fighting anything and click on the objectives.

Is this intended? I feel like playing a game should involve some risk; sort of challenge to overcome. My character didn't seem heoric, more like a bully beating up weaker things. It also made it seem like the main interaction with the envrionment was movement only, running from one click to the next for some snippets of story.

I'm honestly not sure my nostalgia for good times in ESO is stronger than the feeling of playing with a god mode cheat on.

Blackbird_V

We need to move on from the bitter back and forth and come up with genuine woes players face with Overland, its difficulty and other areas people may which to explore going into detail with.

Not all of us are going to agree. Some are harsh supports of wanting a difficulty change, whereas some are outright against it. We need to move on from this and empathise with eachother. Regardless of whether or not you enjoy veteran content, or casual gameplay - we all play the same game. The game offers so many choices: questing, overland, dungeons, arenas (we need more tbh) and raids. Those also have a choice of a veteran mode and normal mode. Veteran mode also includes hard modes on last bosses, with the exception of newer DLC trials and dungeons potentially having a hm for each boss.

We won't ever see eye to eye and we need to accept that. So can we just get along now?

SilverBride

There are many good things about how overland is today and reinforcing the positive and what is working well for players is also important.

Jammy420

[snip]

SilverBride wrote: »

I think of ESO as more story based. Yes there is combat but the story is a major focus.

They literally said in their recent dev update for the future and present of the game that fast paced complex combat is at the core of the game, as long as story. So to me that hints that they got the message, imo.

mocap wrote: »

Once again a lot of players reason in style: "I don't need it, and therefore no one needs it"
This is extremely selfish.

If ZOS somehow implement overland difficulty, it will be optional. You can keep enjoing casual overland, but why you don't want for other players to enjoy harder version? Can someone explain me this super wierd logic?

Agreed, this whole " its my way or no way " is ridiculous.

adamcavillb16_ESO wrote: »

This comment doesn't follow on from anything in this thread and I can only imagine that something similar has already been said in the 160 pages of comments that precede it. However, as this thread is called Overland Feedback I'd still like to leave some.

I've been playing ESO off and on since launch. I have accounts with 900-1000 CP on the NA and EU servers. I've gotten as far as starting Veteran Trials and finished some of the veteran solo content.

I thought I might come back to ESO. I have mostly forgotten how to play so I rolled a new character, a nightblade, and entered the High Isles. I fought a few random guys on the way to a quest delve. I thought it was a bit weird that my health bar didn't move but just wrote it off to overland being tuned to be easy. I then went into a delve and noticed even if I did nothing when fighting one or two mobs that my health bar didn't go down at all. I then ran further into the delve and pulled about 6 or 7 mobs. I wanted to see what would happen. I stood there with my level 4 character with starter armor on and no CP points assigned without taking any significant damage. I then discovered I could run through the entire delve without fighting anything and click on the objectives.

Is this intended? I feel like playing a game should involve some risk; sort of challenge to overcome. My character didn't seem heoric, more like a bully beating up weaker things. It also made it seem like the main interaction with the envrionment was movement only, running from one click to the next for some snippets of story.

I'm honestly not sure my nostalgia for good times in ESO is stronger than the feeling of playing with a god mode cheat on.

This is exactly my problem with the game. It isnt even that it is easy. It is so far below easy,[snip]

[edited for baiting]

SilverBride

[snip]

There has not been anything new brought to the table since the first few pages of this thread. The only ideas I've seen are for a separate veteran overland or debuffs and challenge banners. And a third option to leave overland just as it is.

Several of the posters support debuffs and challenge banners, even some of us that think overland is fine just as it is. But the requests for a separate veteran overland with better rewards is something that I feel would be very bad for the game for reasons I've given in this thread, and I reinforce my feedback to protect the game I love.

[edited to remove quote]

vsrs_au

SilverBride wrote: »

[snip]

There has not been anything new brought to the table since the first few pages of this thread. The only ideas I've seen are for a separate veteran overland or debuffs and challenge banners. And a third option to leave overland just as it is.

Several of the posters support debuffs and challenge banners, even some of us that think overland is fine just as it is. But the requests for a separate veteran overland with better rewards is something that I feel would be very bad for the game for reasons I've given in this thread, and I reinforce my feedback to protect the game I love.

[edited to remove quote]

Sorry, but that's incorrect. Whatever you may think of it, my proposal *was* completely different to anything you just mentioned.

colossalvoids

SilverBride wrote: »

There are many good things about how overland is today and reinforcing the positive and what is working well for players is also important.

Reminded me of that video, which is basically absolute new player perspective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBzmSA3yX_w

Jammy420

vsrs_au wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

[snip]

There has not been anything new brought to the table since the first few pages of this thread. The only ideas I've seen are for a separate veteran overland or debuffs and challenge banners. And a third option to leave overland just as it is.

Several of the posters support debuffs and challenge banners, even some of us that think overland is fine just as it is. But the requests for a separate veteran overland with better rewards is something that I feel would be very bad for the game for reasons I've given in this thread, and I reinforce my feedback to protect the game I love.

[edited to remove quote]

Sorry, but that's incorrect. Whatever you may think of it, my proposal *was* completely different to anything you just mentioned.

I have seen a lot of different creative ideas for an overland change, and mostly what I hear is people not wanting it changed no matter what.

SilverBride

Jammy420 wrote: »

I have seen a lot of different creative ideas for an overland change, and mostly what I hear is people not wanting it changed no matter what.

The ONLY thing that is consistently disagreed with is a separate veteran overland. Yet there are some who will ONLY accept a separate overland and no other solution.

I think it's pretty generous of players who are happy with overland as it is and do not think anything needs changed to support some options, such as debuffs, difficulty sliders and challenge banners, when we would probably never use them ourselves. But we support those options as a QoL feature for others.

Jammy420

SilverBride wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

I have seen a lot of different creative ideas for an overland change, and mostly what I hear is people not wanting it changed no matter what.

The ONLY thing that is consistently disagreed with is a separate veteran overland. Yet there are some who will ONLY accept a separate overland and no other solution.

I think it's pretty generous of players who are happy with overland as it is and do not think anything needs changed to support some options, such as debuffs, difficulty sliders and challenge banners, when we would probably never use them ourselves. But we support those options as a QoL feature for others.

A seperate overland would solve the issue for nearly everyone. It would be simple to implement, and wouldnt burden the system. Simply take people who dont want vet overland, put them in those instances, put people who choose vet overland in those instances from the normal instances. It balances out easily. It is a simple, elegant, and selfless. And all because....what? There hasnt been a single logical argument why this wouldnt work. Why on earth should we debuff ourselves for simply wanting our practice to not go to waste? Why would we want the devs to waste more resources on banners and sliders if it would take away from dev time elsewhere where its needed?

The only logical, with everyone in mind, solution, is a seperate instance.

Logically, logistically, and without taking time away from other projects it is the best solution.

Yet all we hear is no no no, and absolutely no solution that is more logical, and logistically sound.

Credible_Joe

We've heard it before. Overland is too easy. Sucks the drama out of the narrative when you can't appreciate the stakes.

Here's how I would approach an opt-in Champion Overland. No separate instance, instead an immersive compromise. I present for your consideration:

The Serpent's Entropy

• A Champion Point constellation of The Serpent reverse to the Thief, Mage, and Warrior
  • No equippable star slots; all Entropy is passive and stacks
  • Stars only apply to overland content and public dungeons. Group dungeons, trials, world bosses, and group / solo arenas are unaffected.
  • The three lower stars are nested trees that represent the guardians being consumed, the head is the Serpent itself.
• Like the current Guardians, the Serpent tree has a root that unlocks more entropy stars.
  • Reverse to the current guardians, we start at the top and go down
  • Initial star: Lonely Champion
    • Fight your battles alone. While in combat, other players outside your group cannot be seen or interacted with, and they cannot see or interact with you or the monsters you're fighting. While other players are in combat, you cannot see or interact with them or the monsters they're fighting.
    • Syncs & isolates monsters to the client. A partial instance; we'd still see players adventuring, but in combat everyone else (not grouped with you) fades away.
    • Group leader's Serpent points take priority
• The rest of the stars have miscellaneous effects that buff monsters and / or debuff yourself. In no particular order:
  • Increase opponent health / armor
  • NPCs can crit
  • disable combat cues; Shorter NPC telegraphs & quicker attack patterns
  • Monster aggro chains; if an NPC starts combat with you, after a moment they alert nearby NPCs outside of your own aggro range. They, in turn, can alert others with a smaller radius, ramping down until the alert peters out or you finish win / disengage. Encourages finishing fights quickly before the action alerts the whole gang / nest / haunt and brings every mob in the dungeon onto you.
  • Player does less damage
  • Lower player's equipment quality (for instance, if you have gold equipment, reduce it to purple, etc)
  • Lower player's equipment level
  • Players can only revive at wayshrines / blue flames (dungeon entrances)
  • Increase armor degradation on death
  • Gold multiplier (like the tel var multiplier) that resets on death / guard fine, and starts lower than default gold rate
  • Quality multiplier, same as above. Increases quality of loot as you adventure, resets on death, starts lower than default.
  • E T C

With the above system, any player would be able to ramp up difficulty as much as they want without affecting anyone else. They could make overland as hard as a solo arena, or harder. It could push the envelope on theorycrafting, finding builds that can tackle content on full entropy.

Most importantly, in my opinion, it would make the narrative much more engaging. It's hard to take NPCs' awe and admiration seriously when you can stand still and light attack the Big Bad to death. In fact, it just feels patronizing at that point. A shame-- overall I enjoy the stories and lore each chapter & DLC adds to the IP.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Please be kind, and remember, this is a pipe dream. I have zero expectation for ZOS to implement this exactly as I've written. The core message is zos, pls consider making overland & solo content more difficult & engaging.

Elsonso

.

Jammy420 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

I have seen a lot of different creative ideas for an overland change, and mostly what I hear is people not wanting it changed no matter what.

The ONLY thing that is consistently disagreed with is a separate veteran overland. Yet there are some who will ONLY accept a separate overland and no other solution.

I think it's pretty generous of players who are happy with overland as it is and do not think anything needs changed to support some options, such as debuffs, difficulty sliders and challenge banners, when we would probably never use them ourselves. But we support those options as a QoL feature for others.

A seperate overland would solve the issue for nearly everyone. It would be simple to implement, and wouldnt burden the system. Simply take people who dont want vet overland, put them in those instances, put people who choose vet overland in those instances from the normal instances. It balances out easily. It is a simple, elegant, and selfless. And all because....what? There hasnt been a single logical argument why this wouldnt work. Why on earth should we debuff ourselves for simply wanting our practice to not go to waste? Why would we want the devs to waste more resources on banners and sliders if it would take away from dev time elsewhere where its needed?

The only logical, with everyone in mind, solution, is a seperate instance.

Logically, logistically, and without taking time away from other projects it is the best solution.

Yet all we hear is no no no, and absolutely no solution that is more logical, and logistically sound.

The main reason I say "NO" to separate instances is that the assumptions that are used cannot be validated. We don't know that it would be simple to implement. We don't know that it would be no burden on the system. It sounds simple and elegant, but that is to us, not the people that would have to do the work.

My assumptions about the system are different. I think that it would increase the infrastructure demands. I think it would split the player base. I think it would cost more for ZOS to implement and maintain. While it is a possible solution, it is not guaranteed to be the best solution.

Of course... I don't know any better than other people in the forum.

Jammy420

voltjoe.santiagob14_ESO wrote: »

We've heard it before. Overland is too easy. Sucks the drama out of the narrative when you can't appreciate the stakes.

Here's how I would approach an opt-in Champion Overland. No separate instance, instead an immersive compromise. I present for your consideration:

The Serpent's Entropy

• A Champion Point constellation of The Serpent reverse to the Thief, Mage, and Warrior
  • No equippable star slots; all Entropy is passive and stacks
  • Stars only apply to overland content and public dungeons. Group dungeons, trials, world bosses, and group / solo arenas are unaffected.
  • The three lower stars are nested trees that represent the guardians being consumed, the head is the Serpent itself.
• Like the current Guardians, the Serpent tree has a root that unlocks more entropy stars.
  • Reverse to the current guardians, we start at the top and go down
  • Initial star: Lonely Champion
    • Fight your battles alone. While in combat, other players outside your group cannot be seen or interacted with, and they cannot see or interact with you or the monsters you're fighting. While other players are in combat, you cannot see or interact with them or the monsters they're fighting.
    • Syncs & isolates monsters to the client. A partial instance; we'd still see players adventuring, but in combat everyone else (not grouped with you) fades away.
    • Group leader's Serpent points take priority
• The rest of the stars have miscellaneous effects that buff monsters and / or debuff yourself. In no particular order:
  • Increase opponent health / armor
  • NPCs can crit
  • disable combat cues; Shorter NPC telegraphs & quicker attack patterns
  • Monster aggro chains; if an NPC starts combat with you, after a moment they alert nearby NPCs outside of your own aggro range. They, in turn, can alert others with a smaller radius, ramping down until the alert peters out or you finish win / disengage. Encourages finishing fights quickly before the action alerts the whole gang / nest / haunt and brings every mob in the dungeon onto you.
  • Player does less damage
  • Lower player's equipment quality (for instance, if you have gold equipment, reduce it to purple, etc)
  • Lower player's equipment level
  • Players can only revive at wayshrines / blue flames (dungeon entrances)
  • Increase armor degradation on death
  • Gold multiplier (like the tel var multiplier) that resets on death / guard fine, and starts lower than default gold rate
  • Quality multiplier, same as above. Increases quality of loot as you adventure, resets on death, starts lower than default.
  • E T C

With the above system, any player would be able to ramp up difficulty as much as they want without affecting anyone else. They could make overland as hard as a solo arena, or harder. It could push the envelope on theorycrafting, finding builds that can tackle content on full entropy.

Most importantly, in my opinion, it would make the narrative much more engaging. It's hard to take NPCs' awe and admiration seriously when you can stand still and light attack the Big Bad to death. In fact, it just feels patronizing at that point. A shame-- overall I enjoy the stories and lore each chapter & DLC adds to the IP.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Please be kind, and remember, this is a pipe dream. I have zero expectation for ZOS to implement this exactly as I've written. The core message is zos, pls consider making overland & solo content more difficult & engaging.

I feel like this would be a balancing nightmare. We already have issues with the current star system and race, skills, classes, etc balance. Its defintely something that has potential though. A survival mode of sorts would also be good for me.

Elsonso wrote: »

.

Jammy420 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

I have seen a lot of different creative ideas for an overland change, and mostly what I hear is people not wanting it changed no matter what.

The ONLY thing that is consistently disagreed with is a separate veteran overland. Yet there are some who will ONLY accept a separate overland and no other solution.

I think it's pretty generous of players who are happy with overland as it is and do not think anything needs changed to support some options, such as debuffs, difficulty sliders and challenge banners, when we would probably never use them ourselves. But we support those options as a QoL feature for others.

A seperate overland would solve the issue for nearly everyone. It would be simple to implement, and wouldnt burden the system. Simply take people who dont want vet overland, put them in those instances, put people who choose vet overland in those instances from the normal instances. It balances out easily. It is a simple, elegant, and selfless. And all because....what? There hasnt been a single logical argument why this wouldnt work. Why on earth should we debuff ourselves for simply wanting our practice to not go to waste? Why would we want the devs to waste more resources on banners and sliders if it would take away from dev time elsewhere where its needed?

The only logical, with everyone in mind, solution, is a seperate instance.

Logically, logistically, and without taking time away from other projects it is the best solution.

Yet all we hear is no no no, and absolutely no solution that is more logical, and logistically sound.

The main reason I say "NO" to separate instances is that the assumptions that are used cannot be validated. We don't know that it would be simple to implement. We don't know that it would be no burden on the system. It sounds simple and elegant, but that is to us, not the people that would have to do the work.

My assumptions about the system are different. I think that it would increase the infrastructure demands. I think it would split the player base. I think it would cost more for ZOS to implement and maintain. While it is a possible solution, it is not guaranteed to be the best solution.

Of course... I don't know any better than other people in the forum.

But we do. Because we already HAVE times where they increase instance amount for events, which also increases stability as a happy coincidence, so worries of stability issues are already refuted with easily verifiable statistics, and we already have veteran instancess in dungeons and trials, and we have a veteran selection option in the social menu i believe it is. The skeleton is there, so are most of the muscles, organ systems and connective tissue.

The bulk of the work is already done. The multipliers could be simply applied to all overland mobs, mini bosses, world bosses, delve bosses, and quest bosses, as a sweeping change.

It also would not split the player base, because you could have a vet zone chat and a "normal" zone chat section, and both would be visible in Zone, AS is already the case with the multiple language chats, and those also do not split the community, nor did they when more language sections were added.

As for cost and maintenance, see all points above which show that cost and maintenance are a non issue.

I hope that clarified things. All other options requre a significant chunk of development time, a significant chunk of QA and balancing, and a significant amount of brain storming on the devs part. This, which I believe is the most popular solution, would require the bare minimum in effort, as nearly all issues you and others have raised, are adressed and already in game, or are in game during events, and are tested, tried and true.

Also, I had 2 hours of sleep and six months worth of insomnia under my belt, so sorry if this wasnt the best grammar and structure ever.

Blackbird_V

voltjoe.santiagob14_ESO wrote: »

We've heard it before. Overland is too easy. Sucks the drama out of the narrative when you can't appreciate the stakes.

Here's how I would approach an opt-in Champion Overland. No separate instance, instead an immersive compromise. I present for your consideration:

The Serpent's Entropy

• A Champion Point constellation of The Serpent reverse to the Thief, Mage, and Warrior
  • No equippable star slots; all Entropy is passive and stacks
  • Stars only apply to overland content and public dungeons. Group dungeons, trials, world bosses, and group / solo arenas are unaffected.
  • The three lower stars are nested trees that represent the guardians being consumed, the head is the Serpent itself.
• Like the current Guardians, the Serpent tree has a root that unlocks more entropy stars.
  • Reverse to the current guardians, we start at the top and go down
  • Initial star: Lonely Champion
    • Fight your battles alone. While in combat, other players outside your group cannot be seen or interacted with, and they cannot see or interact with you or the monsters you're fighting. While other players are in combat, you cannot see or interact with them or the monsters they're fighting.
    • Syncs & isolates monsters to the client. A partial instance; we'd still see players adventuring, but in combat everyone else (not grouped with you) fades away.
    • Group leader's Serpent points take priority
• The rest of the stars have miscellaneous effects that buff monsters and / or debuff yourself. In no particular order:
  • Increase opponent health / armor
  • NPCs can crit
  • disable combat cues; Shorter NPC telegraphs & quicker attack patterns
  • Monster aggro chains; if an NPC starts combat with you, after a moment they alert nearby NPCs outside of your own aggro range. They, in turn, can alert others with a smaller radius, ramping down until the alert peters out or you finish win / disengage. Encourages finishing fights quickly before the action alerts the whole gang / nest / haunt and brings every mob in the dungeon onto you.
  • Player does less damage
  • Lower player's equipment quality (for instance, if you have gold equipment, reduce it to purple, etc)
  • Lower player's equipment level
  • Players can only revive at wayshrines / blue flames (dungeon entrances)
  • Increase armor degradation on death
  • Gold multiplier (like the tel var multiplier) that resets on death / guard fine, and starts lower than default gold rate
  • Quality multiplier, same as above. Increases quality of loot as you adventure, resets on death, starts lower than default.
  • E T C

With the above system, any player would be able to ramp up difficulty as much as they want without affecting anyone else. They could make overland as hard as a solo arena, or harder. It could push the envelope on theorycrafting, finding builds that can tackle content on full entropy.

Most importantly, in my opinion, it would make the narrative much more engaging. It's hard to take NPCs' awe and admiration seriously when you can stand still and light attack the Big Bad to death. In fact, it just feels patronizing at that point. A shame-- overall I enjoy the stories and lore each chapter & DLC adds to the IP.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Please be kind, and remember, this is a pipe dream. I have zero expectation for ZOS to implement this exactly as I've written. The core message is zos, pls consider making overland & solo content more difficult & engaging.

Lonely champion is interested, but It'd be nice to do harder content with others as well, even if outside our group. Such as the days before One Tamriel, you're all in the harder zones and can always LFM/LFG for help with this or that.

Fight your battles alone. While in combat, other players outside your group cannot be seen or interacted with, and they cannot see or interact with you or the monsters you're fighting. While other players are in combat, you cannot see or interact with them or the monsters they're fighting.

If that did not apply to others with the CP, so I could see others fighting things with that CP enabled (only if it's enabled by myself as well) then that can work, but then that may be hard to balance correctly. Who knows? Not a bad suggestion though.

I do feel that suggestion may take up a lot more dev time than simply copy and pasting zones and massively ramp up enemy scaling. However, I am not a developer so I would not know, but it seemingly cannot be that bad if every new dungeon/trial release has a normal mode and veteran mode instance.

---

spartaxoxo

Jammy420 wrote: »

Why would we want the devs to waste more resources on banners and sliders if it would take away from dev time elsewhere where its needed?

They have already stated that a separate instances would be a lot of development work and have cited it as a reason as to why they haven't implemented it. It would not save development time or resources to rework the entire overland to a harder version of itself. Since the devs themselves have explicitly refuted the idea a separate instances wouldn't be a massive effort, I trust their word on that as they are the only ones familiar with the code of this game in particular.

The LOTRO devs, which is ofc a different game so we can't know how it shakes out the same for ESO, also used a debuff slider specifically because it reduced the amount of work necessary to a scope that was workable.

Jammy420 wrote: »

The only logical, with everyone in mind, solution, is a seperate instance.

We have working examples in MMOs of other solutions. This includes landscape debuff sliders and leveled areas.

Credible_Joe

Jammy420 wrote: »

I feel like this would be a balancing nightmare. We already have issues with the current star system and race, skills, classes, etc balance. Its defintely something that has potential though. A survival mode of sorts would also be good for me.

How does balance come into play? It's isolated to whoever opts in + group members. If anything, it would be a useful tool for testing & measuring balance, as it stands. Figure out the highest entropy any class / build can solo at.

Jammy420

voltjoe.santiagob14_ESO wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

I feel like this would be a balancing nightmare. We already have issues with the current star system and race, skills, classes, etc balance. Its defintely something that has potential though. A survival mode of sorts would also be good for me.

How does balance come into play? It's isolated to whoever opts in + group members. If anything, it would be a useful tool for testing & measuring balance, as it stands. Figure out the highest entropy any class / build can solo at.

They already have issues balancing the simplest things, and they have stated that they dont want more calculations as that causes the increase in lag apparently.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

Why would we want the devs to waste more resources on banners and sliders if it would take away from dev time elsewhere where its needed?

They have already stated that a separate instances would be a lot of development work and have cited it as a reason as to why they haven't implemented it. It would not save development time or resources to rework the entire overland to a harder version of itself. Since the devs themselves have explicitly refuted the idea a separate instances would be a massive effort, I trust their word on that as they are the only ones familiar with the code of this game in particular.

The LOTRO devs, which is ofc a different game so we can't know how it shakes out the same for ESO, also used a debuff slider specifically because it reduced the amount of work necessary to a scope that was workable.

Jammy420 wrote: »

The only logical, with everyone in mind, solution, is a seperate instance.

We have working examples in MMOs of other solutions. This includes landscape debuff sliders and leveled areas.

Those are other mmos, with different dev teams, with different strengths and weaknesses. If we look at this game, it needs to be easy to implement ( added servers already are done for events ), simple ( multipliers already there ), low development time ( vet option is already there for dungeons), and wouldnt split community ( as demonstrated by different chat selections in game atm, so everyone can still communicate , no isolation necessary )

They may have st ated that , but we already HAVE new instances for events. So sorry, I do not believe that. The devs are not perfect after all, no one is, neither am I, we all say things that arent true sometimes. They wouldnt have to individually do anything, itd be a simple sweeping multiplier being added. There would be no required new mechanics, no new animations, nothing.

Credible_Joe

btw, dev time & feasibility is a big factor in this discussion. So regarding my Serpent's Entropy suggestion, particularly

• Reverse to the current guardians, we start at the top and go down
• Initial star: Lonely Champion
  • Fight your battles alone. While in combat, other players outside your group cannot be seen or interacted with, and they cannot see or interact with you or the monsters you're fighting. While other players are in combat, you cannot see or interact with them or the monsters they're fighting.
  • Syncs & isolates monsters to the client. A partial instance; we'd still see players adventuring, but in combat everyone else (not grouped with you) fades away.
  • Group leader's Serpent points take priority

I would argue that this takes the least dev time relative to the other suggested solutions: veteran instance & personal sliders.

As far as I can tell, syncing monsters to all players is the most difficult part of development. Making sure that works no matter what and all players have a consistent experience relative to each other.

With the above suggestion, moving a player's overland combat experience off of the mega servers (solo, that is) could potentially ease the load for everyone else. I know it wouldn't be simple by any means, but I imagine it's much simpler than instancing zones by difficulty, and much more simple than however difficulty sliders would work.

I understand that emergent group play is part of the experience and some are reluctant to give that up. But remember, it's only during combat. We would still be able to interact with players otherwise, including recruiting help for a difficult boss or a public dungeon.

Ultimately, there probably isn't a solution that isn't dev intensive. But I submit that mine is the least complicated from a technical standpoint. De-syncing combat would be easier than anything involving instances.

BenTSG

I've not read any of the other suggestions on here because, well, there is a *lot* to go by, but for me personally, I could suggest two things.

1 - This games combat has always boasted about it being fast paced, yet the NPCs take an age and a half to do a simple light attack. Perhaps bringing their attack speed and abilities cast times up, or even removing cast times in general would help make the PvE feel a little bit nicer.

2 - I keep hearing an arguement about a 'seperate Vet Overland' on the grounds of it splitting the community in two, yet instanced areas already exsist in the game, such as a area that if you've not completed the quests and little story there, you cannot see those who have who are inside. So why not apply the same area instances to all the towns in ESO? Make them their own thing so when you go there, you can see any and every player inside regardless of overland difficulty setting, but then only see those of your setting in the wilds. ZOS is the one who always wants reasons to keep the towns populated and useful. A all instance zone chat would also be useful as well.

I could probably think of more suggestions of my own given time, but I thought I;d share these two at least. They