Overland Content Feedback Thread

Faulgor

Why not increase overland difficulty? Why not have Normal vs Veteran instances of overland?

Sort of looking back at how we did things with difficult overland content back before One Tamriel, we didn't see favorable results from separating players based on arbitrary categories and we really want to allow players to play with whoever they want and not introduce another barrier of interaction between different demographics of players.

With that being said, we do recognize a lot of people want increased overland difficulty and the new world events (Bastion Nymics) that are instanced for up to 4 players in Necrom is one of our answers to that.

I hate how that question was asked, specifically referring to veteran "instances". We know full well that the devs don't want that, that it separtes the player base and requires more work than simply debuffing players through one of a myriad of ways. All of that has been clear from day one, so why are there still people suggesting it?

As for their answer, creating 4-player content like the Necrom world events is also instanced and therefore inherently separating. Their own "solution" doesn't seem to gel with their vision.

The reason difficult overland before One Tamriel (specifically Craglorn and silver/gold zones) was not enjoyable were the terrible rewards. Really, they were even worse than now, when more and more people are starting to bring up the lack of incentives and rewards (in this very AMA! Twice!). So any higher difficulty setting for overland is doomed to fail unless it comes with rewards - just consider how many people would do vet dungeons if the rewards were the same as normal ones.

Frankly, maybe soon it's time to get an official feedback thread on rewards started.

Elsonso

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Why not increase overland difficulty? Why not have Normal vs Veteran instances of overland?

Sort of looking back at how we did things with difficult overland content back before One Tamriel, we didn't see favorable results from separating players based on arbitrary categories and we really want to allow players to play with whoever they want and not introduce another barrier of interaction between different demographics of players.

With that being said, we do recognize a lot of people want increased overland difficulty and the new world events (Bastion Nymics) that are instanced for up to 4 players in Necrom is one of our answers to that.

So this is the lastest statement made by Matt Firor during the AMA, I have put it here for easier reference/so it will always be available in this thread. This time it was Matt rather than Rich, but it's very similar statement. Looks like world events is how they want to address this for now.

FYI... I was going to hold off on posting the text until the official AMA video came out. Nefas summarized the answer, which is perfectly fine and he got the sentiment, but it is a summary of the answer. The direct quote, which I do not have, is canon Lore.

SilverBride

To reply to a few

CP5 wrote: »

I've skipped years worth of overland content because playing the role of a god killing everything without resistance isn't engaging and robs any sense of value from the story or the world for me...

...When I log in I don't go out into the world and engage with it, my spot in the zone instance is as a person at the bank waiting for a dungeon queue to pop, or the like, I'm not engaging with other players there. If there was a vet instance, all the players in it would be there for that feature, meaning more players who would otherwise be doing nothing would actually be more likely to engage with one another, and with their spots freed up in normal instances, a higher ratio of players in those normal instances would also be engaging with each other.

I find the opposite to be true. I've worked hard to develop my character and overland should be easier for me now. It is immersion breaking for a character as strong as I've become to still struggle with overland.

I seriously doubt that players in either instance of overland would interact any more than they do now. I personally don't care why the player next to me is in town. Just knowing that they choose one overland over the other isn't a reason for me to engage with them.

Faulgor wrote: »

The reason difficult overland before One Tamriel (specifically Craglorn and silver/gold zones) was not enjoyable were the terrible rewards.

The rewards had nothing to do with it. The problem was the difficulty of Silver and Gold and the forced grouping of Craglorn. This is why me and many of my friends left and didn't come back until One Tamriel.

Credible_Joe

SilverBride wrote: »

To reply to a few

CP5 wrote: »

I've skipped years worth of overland content because playing the role of a god killing everything without resistance isn't engaging and robs any sense of value from the story or the world for me...

...When I log in I don't go out into the world and engage with it, my spot in the zone instance is as a person at the bank waiting for a dungeon queue to pop, or the like, I'm not engaging with other players there. If there was a vet instance, all the players in it would be there for that feature, meaning more players who would otherwise be doing nothing would actually be more likely to engage with one another, and with their spots freed up in normal instances, a higher ratio of players in those normal instances would also be engaging with each other.

I find the opposite to be true. I've worked hard to develop my character and overland should be easier for me now. It is immersion breaking for a character as strong as I've become to still struggle with overland.

This I don't understand. What really breaks immersion for me is that some quests are easy enough for base gear companions to solo, while most group content is almost or expressly impossible to solo.

What's the difference, narratively? Why can I survive Laatvulon's bites and thu'ums with health to spare, but if I step in red for any other nameless dragon, I drop like a stone? Why can I basic attack the ascendant lord into submission, but the first boss in scrivener's hall can swat me down like a fly? It doesn't make sense. It's arbitrary level setting, and it makes the narrative feel hollow and inconsistent. It makes the main story of a chapter-- 70% of the chapter's content-- feel like a disney land tour where villain mascots in felt costumes fall over when you wave a toy sword at them.

The power fantasy I get, and I do enjoy the feeling of building up my gear and skills to conquer world ending threats. But in your own words, you worked hard to develop your character. You should be able to faceroll the adversity, to be the lauded and adored hero. Except it doesn't matter. You could be naked and basic attacking with level 1 weapons (or even unarmed), and you would make the same accomplishments in a similar timeframe. Doesn't that take away any incentive for building up your character? Doesn't that feel like a punishment, a slap in the face?

To each their own. There's story mode difficulties in most narrative video games for a reason. But making everyone do story mode takes a lot of the fun out of the game for a lot of people.

SilverBride

Credible_Joe wrote: »

This I don't understand. What really breaks immersion for me is that some quests are easy enough for base gear companions to solo, while most group content is almost or expressly impossible to solo.

What's the difference, narratively? Why can I survive Laatvulon's bites and thu'ums with health to spare, but if I step in red for any other nameless dragon, I drop like a stone? Why can I basic attack the ascendant lord into submission, but the first boss in scrivener's hall can swat me down like a fly? It doesn't make sense. It's arbitrary level setting, and it makes the narrative feel hollow and inconsistent. It makes the main story of a chapter-- 70% of the chapter's content-- feel like a disney land tour where villain mascots in felt costumes fall over when you wave a toy sword at them.

The power fantasy I get, and I do enjoy the feeling of building up my gear and skills to conquer world ending threats. But in your own words, you worked hard to develop your character. You should be able to faceroll the adversity, to be the lauded and adored hero. Except it doesn't matter. You could be naked and basic attacking with level 1 weapons (or even unarmed), and you would make the same accomplishments in a similar timeframe. Doesn't that take away any incentive for building up your character? Doesn't that feel like a punishment, a slap in the face?

To each their own. There's story mode difficulties in most narrative video games for a reason. But making everyone do story mode takes a lot of the fun out of the game for a lot of people.

Are you saying that the issue for you isn't that overland is too easy, but rather that the difficulty is too inconsistent?

In my opinion quests should be easy enough for all players because there is a wide range of levels and gear and experience in overland and everyone should be able to play through the story. And group content should be more difficult, which is why they are set up for groups and not as solo.

Regardless of our individual views and preferences, they are adding some new events to address the issue of overland difficulty. It will be interesting to see what these are about and if they increase satisfaction for those that seek difficulty.

spartaxoxo

Faulgor wrote: »

I hate how that question was asked, specifically referring to veteran "instances". We know full well that the devs don't want that, that it separtes the player base and requires more work than simply debuffing players through one of a myriad of ways. All of that has been clear from day one, so why are there still people suggesting it?

I do wish we could get a new answer on a debuff slider like LOTRO did. The answer to a separate instances has continued to be the same for years now. They aren't doing it because they don't want to separate the playerbase. They consider that a hard lesson from before One Tamriel, so that is not going to happen at this time. I'd like a new answer to a different question.

Credible_Joe

SilverBride wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

This I don't understand. What really breaks immersion for me is that some quests are easy enough for base gear companions to solo, while most group content is almost or expressly impossible to solo.

What's the difference, narratively? Why can I survive Laatvulon's bites and thu'ums with health to spare, but if I step in red for any other nameless dragon, I drop like a stone? Why can I basic attack the ascendant lord into submission, but the first boss in scrivener's hall can swat me down like a fly? It doesn't make sense. It's arbitrary level setting, and it makes the narrative feel hollow and inconsistent. It makes the main story of a chapter-- 70% of the chapter's content-- feel like a disney land tour where villain mascots in felt costumes fall over when you wave a toy sword at them.

The power fantasy I get, and I do enjoy the feeling of building up my gear and skills to conquer world ending threats. But in your own words, you worked hard to develop your character. You should be able to faceroll the adversity, to be the lauded and adored hero. Except it doesn't matter. You could be naked and basic attacking with level 1 weapons (or even unarmed), and you would make the same accomplishments in a similar timeframe. Doesn't that take away any incentive for building up your character? Doesn't that feel like a punishment, a slap in the face?

To each their own. There's story mode difficulties in most narrative video games for a reason. But making everyone do story mode takes a lot of the fun out of the game for a lot of people.

Are you saying that the issue for you isn't that overland is too easy, but rather that the difficulty is too inconsistent?

In my opinion quests should be easy enough for all players because there is a wide range of levels and gear and experience in overland and everyone should be able to play through the story. And group content should be more difficult, which is why they are set up for groups and not as solo.

Regardless of our individual views and preferences, they are adding some new events to address the issue of overland difficulty. It will be interesting to see what these are about and if they increase satisfaction for those that seek difficulty.

For what it's worth, I have also lobbied for hard group checks to be removed from dungeons, at least on normal mode. I can solo most normal group dungeons; it's even easier with Isobel geared for tank. It's frustrating when an unbreakable pin blocks progress; especially when Precognition works for some of them, but not all of them. Personally, my favorite group mechanics scale in difficulty with fewer group members, but aren't impossible to solo.

I agree that all content should be accessible to all players, but where I chafe is bringing the bar so low for everyone that it becomes boring.

I'll probably enjoy these new world events, and I'll probably live in this endless dungeon they have planned for q4. But those things won't take the hollowness out of the overland content.

SilverBride

Credible_Joe wrote: »

I agree that all content should be accessible to all players, but where I chafe is bringing the bar so low for everyone that it becomes boring.

What one player finds boring another finds fun. I love overland just as it is and enjoy feeling strong now. This is why MMOs have a variety of activities to choose from because not everyone enjoys the same thing.

I hope these new events and the endless dungeon will prove to be enjoyable for players that are seeking more options.

Elsonso

.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Faulgor wrote: »

I hate how that question was asked, specifically referring to veteran "instances". We know full well that the devs don't want that, that it separtes the player base and requires more work than simply debuffing players through one of a myriad of ways. All of that has been clear from day one, so why are there still people suggesting it?

I do wish we could get a new answer on a debuff slider like LOTRO did. The answer to a separate instances has continued to be the same for years now. They aren't doing it because they don't want to separate the playerbase. They consider that a hard lesson from before One Tamriel, so that is not going to happen at this time. I'd like a new answer to a different question.

Honestly, the questions about "why not instances" and "why not debuffs" have been asked. They have been answered, too.

Gina has said they are looking at ways to publish the AMA, so hopefully that comes out Soonᵀᴹ.

CP5

And what you find fun, other people find boring Silver. That's the point. Just because it is an option you wouldn't care for does not mean it shouldn't be in the game, else we wouldn't have companions or a card game. An option being given to others doesn't take things away from you, but without that option being made, in whatever form it could be made, players like myself leave due to the fact that the largest piece of content in the game, the one that likely brought many of us here in the first place, is painfully dull, and being told to "go to our corner" over and over is very off-putting.

And speaking of, how do you feel about them using 'instanced' overland events, does that not divide the player base? All it is to me is a cheap version of dungeons, which we already have plenty of, and fails in every way to understand that players like myself actually want to enjoy the world of tamriel, not be told, again, to play in a corner.

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

And what you find fun, other people find boring Silver. That's the point. Just because it is an option you wouldn't care for does not mean it shouldn't be in the game, else we wouldn't have companions or a card game. An option being given to others doesn't take things away from you, but without that option being made, in whatever form it could be made, players like myself leave due to the fact that the largest piece of content in the game, the one that likely brought many of us here in the first place, is painfully dull, and being told to "go to our corner" over and over is very off-putting.

And speaking of, how do you feel about them using 'instanced' overland events, does that not divide the player base? All it is to me is a cheap version of dungeons, which we already have plenty of, and fails in every way to understand that players like myself actually want to enjoy the world of tamriel, not be told, again, to play in a corner.

I know what I enjoy others may find boring, just as what some find boring I do enjoy. Not agreeing with one suggestion doesn't mean I am not sympathetic or telling anyone to "go to their corner". This is why I have advocated for challenge banners for quest bosses, and difficulty levels for delves and public dungeons (because these are already instanced content) and debuffs and difficulty sliders. The only thing I am against is a separate veteran overland.

I am not against more options for players as long as they don't negatively affect the rest of the playerbase and the game in general. That is why I am hopeful that these new events and endless dungeon will provide more options for players, especially those that aren't happy with the current options.

spartaxoxo

Elsonso wrote: »

.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Faulgor wrote: »

I hate how that question was asked, specifically referring to veteran "instances". We know full well that the devs don't want that, that it separtes the player base and requires more work than simply debuffing players through one of a myriad of ways. All of that has been clear from day one, so why are there still people suggesting it?

I do wish we could get a new answer on a debuff slider like LOTRO did. The answer to a separate instances has continued to be the same for years now. They aren't doing it because they don't want to separate the playerbase. They consider that a hard lesson from before One Tamriel, so that is not going to happen at this time. I'd like a new answer to a different question.

Honestly, the questions about "why not instances" and "why not debuffs" have been asked. They have been answered, too.

Gina has said they are looking at ways to publish the AMA, so hopefully that comes out Soonᵀᴹ.

I didn't see a new answer to debuffs in the AMA link shared. I suppose I will wait until I see a more official source.

Blackbird_V

I've genuinely given up on this thread and lost hope. 4934 posts now (including this one) and we're STILL bickering about the same stuff as was argued about 4000+ posts ago.

The AMA also shows that the feedback in this thread is likely not listened to, or cared about. Instancing the world events next chapter as a way forward for difficulty in overland is not what most of us pro-vets want, and not to mention the alliance segregation before One Tamriel was once again brought up. An issue we've already discussed.

Oh well, maybe one day they'll consider giving a "lot of people" what we've been wanting. If they ever bring out a debuff option or only quest boss banners, then I won't even bother with it.

Elsonso

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Faulgor wrote: »

I hate how that question was asked, specifically referring to veteran "instances". We know full well that the devs don't want that, that it separtes the player base and requires more work than simply debuffing players through one of a myriad of ways. All of that has been clear from day one, so why are there still people suggesting it?

I do wish we could get a new answer on a debuff slider like LOTRO did. The answer to a separate instances has continued to be the same for years now. They aren't doing it because they don't want to separate the playerbase. They consider that a hard lesson from before One Tamriel, so that is not going to happen at this time. I'd like a new answer to a different question.

Honestly, the questions about "why not instances" and "why not debuffs" have been asked. They have been answered, too.

Gina has said they are looking at ways to publish the AMA, so hopefully that comes out Soonᵀᴹ.

I didn't see a new answer to debuffs in the AMA link shared. I suppose I will wait until I see a more official source.

Both of us. Memory is notoriously unreliable with the passage of time, so I am looking forward to the official source of information.

spartaxoxo

Blackbird_V wrote: »

I've genuinely given up on this thread and lost hope. 4934 posts now (including this one) and we're STILL bickering about the same stuff as was argued about 4000+ posts ago.

The AMA also shows that the feedback in this thread is likely not listened to, or cared about. Instancing the world events next chapter as a way forward for difficulty in overland is not what most of us pro-vets want, and not to mention the alliance segregation before One Tamriel was once again brought up. An issue we've already discussed.

Oh well, maybe one day they'll consider giving a "lot of people" what we've been wanting. If they ever bring out a debuff option or only quest boss banners, then I won't even bother with it.

The One Tamriel thing being brought up again definitely doesn't make this thread feel heard. While I don't personally consider that point to have been refuted by the thread, as I do believe it makes sense, at this point I think people are looking for an answer that takes into account the feedback already given. So, a response that offered new insight instead of the same statements made in previous years would have been nice.

I'd like to know....

What about a debuff slider ala LOTRO? Many of us have argued for that instead of separate instances.

What about a champion point system to address this issue?

What about an adventure zone?

What about challenge banners for story bosses?

How does the new group events address this issue? What about the older group events that already aren't being used as often? What makes this different to say Harrowstorms?

A separate instance isn't the only ideas raised. If they really have a line drawn in the sand on that, there is more than one point raised in this thread.

Parasaurolophus

The answers to AMA look very strange, and I frankly don't understand why ZoS responds in this way.
No, we don't want to repeat the pre-OT experience. And we don't understand "this will split the players" arguments while the overland is empty except for Vivec at any time. While the story is a solo experience for most players. At a time when other players only interfere with immersion in the story.
It's probably right to ask ZoS why you think a separate instance or switch would be a bad idea. Because each time to refer to the game before OT is absolutely not correct. Sorry.
But I definitely like that ZoS even puts more emphasis on other types of content and that makes me happy. I wish my game sessions were mostly non-crafting dailies. But still... I would like immersive stories. And this will not be replaced by any endless dungeons.

SilverBride

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

And we don't understand "this will split the players" arguments while the overland is empty except for Vivec at any time.

Population appears to be specific to the servers because I run into players everywhere I go on PCNA. Every town has players in it and I see others when I'm out questing in overland, too.

But it seems to me that it would be an even bigger problem to split the playerbase on a low population server. If there are already few players out in the world it would be harmful to decrease it even further by splitting it apart.

Blackbird_V

SilverBride wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

And we don't understand "this will split the players" arguments while the overland is empty except for Vivec at any time.

Population appears to be specific to the servers because I run into players everywhere I go on PCNA. Every town has players in it and I see others when I'm out questing in overland, too.

But it seems to me that it would be an even bigger problem to split the playerbase on a low population server. If there are already few players out in the world it would be harmful to decrease it even further by splitting it apart.

So, to dissect: you're worried it will split the playerbase? What if these players really wanted to try out a Veteran Overland instance? You'd deny them their wish, wants or even needs to have this game enjoyable for them, because you don't want a "minority" going elsewhere to do what they want to do?

Not good enough in my opinion. People should be free to pursue their own paths in-game. Whenever I am in weird zones I sometimes see players, yes. I do not however know what they are doing. They could be questing, sure, but again if they wanted a more difficult experience then they should be free to do so, and if it means zones become more empty, then that's fine.

The game has instances of overland anyway. There are many instances of Craglorn, for example. All that'd likely happen is those players will be moved to a different zone instance to fill. And let's be real - it's not as if Malabal Tor is a popular zone people care about.

spartaxoxo

A video game has to balance between what is healthy for the game and it's population and what players want. Players may wish to have trial trifecta mount by logging in, but rewards need to be gatekept.

The game needs to show new players it has a healthy population and ensure they meet experienced players that can assist them, because the ability to attract new players and retain casual players is critical to a game's health.

SilverBride

Blackbird_V wrote: »

So, to dissect: you're worried it will split the playerbase? What if these players really wanted to try out a Veteran Overland instance? You'd deny them their wish, wants or even needs to have this game enjoyable for them, because you don't want a "minority" going elsewhere to do what they want to do?

I don't have the ability to deny anything. They have stated that they do not want to split the playerbase and I agree.

Blackbird_V wrote: »

People should be free to pursue their own paths in-game.

I agree, but it has to be within the confines of what the game offers and what is good for the game.

Blackbird_V wrote: »

The game has instances of overland anyway.

The number of instances is dependent on the player population. A low population area may only have one active instance.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

So, to dissect: you're worried it will split the playerbase? What if these players really wanted to try out a Veteran Overland instance? You'd deny them their wish, wants or even needs to have this game enjoyable for them, because you don't want a "minority" going elsewhere to do what they want to do?

I don't have the ability to deny anything. They have stated that they do not want to split the playerbase and I agree.

Blackbird_V wrote: »

People should be free to pursue their own paths in-game.

I agree, but it has to be within the confines of what the game offers and what is good for the game.

Blackbird_V wrote: »

The game has instances of overland anyway.

The number of instances is dependent on the player population. A low population area may only have one active instance.

Hopefully this response will get my point across well. During my break from this thread, I lurked on the forums, randomly checking out threads. At one point, you were on a thread asking for more challenging npcs to play Tales of Tribute against. In regards to both a harder overland, and a harder card playing npc, both of those the game can offer, given that both things are simply designed that way, and both of those systems offer choice, you can pick which npcs to play against, and as is seen in dungeons and trials, you can similarly pick difficulty of other activities, which would be able to be carried over to overland one for one. Now, for 'good for the game.'

Would you say having more challenging npcs to play Tales of Tribute against would be good for the game? Would it allow people who enjoy the card game to do so without having to play against other players, for all the reasons they might not want to? But, by the logic you have shared here, that would be bad. You would be taking players out of the shared pool of 'players playing tales of tribute with each other,' and wouldn't that ruin the experience of those who want to play against other players? Or, are there more than enough people playing the game, that giving others the choice to engage in it differently that both "sides" could enjoy playing the card game without making the experience worse for each other?

And if so, how isn't that the same for overland? Do you think players like myself who are just standing afk at the bank are contributing to a casual player's experience of the world? Do you think a player whose enjoying a quest appreciates someone blitzing by and killing everything, including quest related bosses, causing the other player to have to wait for things to respawn, is a good thing? Or is it like the card game, where offering choice would allow more people to engage with the game in a way they would like, and that there are enough people around to do this? And if a zone is dead, it's dead, not because people are offered an alternative, but because the zone doesn't offer incentive to go to it, and that's where the attention should be directed.

So, if adding a harder overland is bad because it splits the players, so to would more challenging npcs to play cards with. If adding the harder npcs wouldn't destroy the foundation of tales of tribune for those who wish to play against other players, then why would players being given a choice with how they play overland be so disastrous? If we're too few in number to matter, the population 'loss' wouldn't be noticed, and if we are large enough in number that, even when shuffling players between instances based on preferences on how to play the game, then we are the overwhelming majority, which we aren't, and if anything in between then for any zone of modest population, whose to say you would even notice the difference? Plenty of players are leaving the game due to apathy, are you noticing their departure?

SilverBride

I remember stating that the ToT NPCs were easy to beat even after they increased their AI but I never once asked for separate NPCs that would be more difficult than the normal NPCs. And I haven't played ToT for a few seasons now and probably won't again.

But what does a player saying that the NPCs in a card game are easy to beat have to do with someone else wanting a separate version of the entire game? There is no correlation between the two.

CP5

If you're spending your time playing against npcs, you aren't playing against players. The point is that if you were given the option to have something other than what is already offered, that will subdivide the players in that activity, but are there enough players that, even with the option, there would be enough, or would there not be? The answer is there would, and the same is true for overland, as it is, there are players who would engage with this option that aren't interacting with players like yourself, so you would never even notice their absence, either from them leaving the game, going to cyrodiil, or going to another version of overland.

SilverBride

And if I am not playing ToT at all then I am also not playing against other players.

By this logic every player that is playing ToT or running Dungeons, Trials and Arenas, or decorating their Houses, or PvPing are splitting the playerbase because they aren't all engaging with each other in the same activities.

This is very different than taking one particular activity and splitting it into different versions.

Overland is the base game and the story and while it is not "required" it is a big draw for a lot of players. Splitting this would be detrimental to the health of the game.

Cireous

EDIT -- oops, sorry, this was already brought up it seems --

Just read/watched an interview where, when asked about Overland difficulty increase, they are still NOT interested in going back to the veteran difficulties of the past, but that this new version of incursion (or world events) in the Necrom Chapter is their attempt at answering this problem. Apparently, it's a 4 man experience that's tougher than Harrowstorms.

Not at all what we are asking for, but hey, it's their answer for now.

Seriously, though. Throw us down a few mythics, at least, so we can debuff ourselves for questing. My preference is for one that increases the amount of damage I take by a lot. Like, a lot, a lot.

WiseSky

Cireous wrote: »

EDIT -- oops, sorry, this was already brought up it seems --

Just read/watched an interview where, when asked about Overland difficulty increase, they are still NOT interested in going back to the veteran difficulties of the past, but that this new version of incursion (or world events) in the Necrom Chapter is their attempt at answering this problem. Apparently, it's a 4 man experience that's tougher than Harrowstorms.

Not at all what we are asking for, but hey, it's their answer for now.

Seriously, though. Throw us down a few mythics, at least, so we can debuff ourselves for questing. My preference is for one that increases the amount of damage I take by a lot. Like, a lot, a lot.

Yeah Honestly, It's kinda the only cool idea I would like to see



Edited

Credible_Joe

The fundamental problem with overland difficulty is the damage output of monsters and bosses. There's no consequence to playing poorly, and it's almost impossible to fail.

So, all these debuff sets being proposed accomplish basically the same thing as being naked with level-1 weapons, no attributes and no champion points, which is easy to save as an armory build. I call it hard mode, even though it's still not hard, because no matter how little armor and health you have, monsters can't kill you.

On top of that, all the additional effects of summoning random monsters or AOE's also don't address the fundamental problem, they just generate hurdles that are entirely disconnected from the content you're interacting with anyway.

The only way to address this issue, in my opinion, is to make enemies more dangerous. I don't think a separate veteran overland would fully work either, since once you overcome that level of difficulty, we're back where we started. However, we also can't make the content inaccessible to casual players that don't want to engage with high-level gameplay. That's a line ZOS has repeatedly affirmed that they will not cross, and I agree.

Challenge banners and vet delves are in the right ballpark, but they don't address the issue of randos ahead of or behind you on the same quest, or farming the delve: someone has to wait for the other, a boss respawn, trash mob quest drops, whatever it is that doesn't work very well in a congested setting.

I'm going to repost a suggestion I made on page 161: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7821595/#Comment_7821595

Credible_Joe 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.

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.

Of course I neglected to mention NPC damage in my original post, but the spirit is there. First buff monsters, then debuff the player. The inspiration is from meta-progression systems in rogue-lites such as Hades. Turn the heat up to what you can handle, master it, and then turn it up some more. In the end, it should be about as difficult as soloing a vet dungeon without hard group checks, or a veteran solo arena, with the added benefit of walking you up to that level of skill.

But the core of the idea is that players get a personal experience if they so choose without being separated from general population. We'd interact outside of combat, but adversity remains isolated to your narrative. Bring people with you if you want, not if they happen to be there. Tough boss you can't quite cut down? Two options: turn down the heat, or invite people around you to group for help. This solves the issue of randos killing or farming quest targets without separating you from potential support.

I think this is feasible. There are already ways to conditionally show and hide NPCs to and from different players at different quest stages; applying that system putting their burden client side is definitely possible. Maybe even beneficial to overall performance, who knows?

And most importantly, this would be opt in. Only people engaging with this system would get client-side monsters, everyone else shares the overland content as always. Initially I said narrative engagement was most important, but now I think that the compromise takes higher precedence.

There are a lot of voices in this thread, and a lot of passion. ZOS might be taking baby steps with addressing this issue, but as long as we engage in good faith, I think we'll eventually get this addressed in a way that respects everyone.

spartaxoxo

You can add special attacks with a debuff slider. You can greatly up the damage with a debuff slider. You can provide achievements with a debuff slider. You can create unique experiences with a debuff slider (many survival mods are literally just debuffs. Like take x damage when in a cold environment).

We know this works in an MMO environment because an MMO has already done it. I think it's a good solution.

Cireous

Diablo 4's Overland scaling feels really good so far. I'm sure some of your devs have played/will be playing it. The first 25 levels in the Beta, on Veteran, felt great. I know, different game, different everything. However, difficulty choices for scaling solo play (while still seeing and playing with others in the world) is more of what I would like to see in ESO. Inspiration could be gleaned from this game. Not sure about the technical limitations, though. What they're doing here seems... advanced.

AScarlato

I find it strange I a video game that they consider difficulty “arbitrary”. Makes even less sense given they do separate players by their chosen difficulty in veteran dungeons and trials.