Overland Content Feedback Thread

spartaxoxo

I don't like the idea of splitting the playerbase with a separate overland because I think it will have a detrimental effect on zones that already have unhealthy population levels. Currently, because there is not any permanent separation, the number of instances can expand or contract depending on how many people are playing. Those single instance dead zones already struggle with unhealthy low population issues such as difficulty with getting help. I've seen a new player say they were going to rage quit because they waited at a world boss for an hour in such a zone (it was admittedly off-peak hours). That's not a problem I would want to make more common or exacerbate, when something like the difficulty slider exists and helps to solve the issue without splitting the playerbase. It worked for their single player games. It worked for LOTRO. Why not try it here?

Braffin wrote: »

Interestingly these very same players always "forget" about exactly this argument, when they once again demand pve cyrodiil or ic.

I have posted the same thing about the idea of a PvE IC, the undaunted queue being split into dlc and non-dlc so people can get random rewards without queuing for dlc dungeons, and for the creation of a role playing server.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Imperial City is dead. They cannot split the playerbase of IC and keep a healthy population. They need to address the most common pain points (too much telvar lost on death, loading screens preventing getting back into battle quickly, improper risk vs reward with ganking/large groups vs solo or small groups, more things to buy with telvar) to encourage people to actually use ic rather than trying to split it off.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

This game doesn't use traditional servers. Also, they really want to keep the player base from being split up. So, I don't think it would be a good idea.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

washbern wrote: »

Soarora wrote: »

Not search for a low level, be the low level. Faster queues, too. And your argument for doing random over select dungeons was because of the rewards. Which are transmute, exp, and research jewelry to my understanding. Covered transmute, exp can be obtained in many ways, and the jewelry can be bought.

Edit: I think a “select all non dlc” and “select all dlc” button in the select dungeon menu would be great though. Helps keep the randomness feel and saves all that clicking time.

This is why no one queues. People more often than not queue for rewards. Take away rewards, noone will queue. These checkbox solutions are not solutions but a poorly thought over workaround that does nothing. The better the incentive, the more participants you have

People who aren't queuing now because dlc is part of the pool, would not suddenly join the dlc queue.

In addition, people who dlc queue now only for the rewards would leave the dlc queue.

This would destroy the dlc queue and the express purpose of the activity finder.

I don't think the playerbase should be split up to the extreme detriment of one group of players just to give rewards to a different group of players that are currently choosing to pass on them. I think it's inherently unfair to split the playerbase to such a large extent when it is guaranteed to break the game for one group.

Braffin

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I don't like the idea of splitting the playerbase with a separate overland because I think it will have a detrimental effect on zones that already have unhealthy population levels. Currently, because there is not any permanent separation, the number of instances can expand or contract depending on how many people are playing. Those single instance dead zones already struggle with unhealthy low population issues such as difficulty with getting help. I've seen a new player say they were going to rage quit because they waited at a world boss for an hour in such a zone (it was admittedly off-peak hours). That's not a problem I would want to make more common or exacerbate, when something like the difficulty slider exists and helps to solve the issue without splitting the playerbase. It worked for their single player games. It worked for LOTRO. Why not try it here?

Braffin wrote: »

Interestingly these very same players always "forget" about exactly this argument, when they once again demand pve cyrodiil or ic.

I have posted the same thing about the idea of a PvE IC, the undaunted queue being split into dlc and non-dlc so people can get random rewards without queuing for dlc dungeons, and for the creation of a role playing server.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Imperial City is dead. They cannot split the playerbase of IC and keep a healthy population. They need to address the most common pain points (too much telvar lost on death, loading screens preventing getting back into battle quickly, improper risk vs reward with ganking/large groups vs solo or small groups, more things to buy with telvar) to encourage people to actually use ic rather than trying to split it off.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

This game doesn't use traditional servers. Also, they really want to keep the player base from being split up. So, I don't think it would be a good idea.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

washbern wrote: »

Soarora wrote: »

Not search for a low level, be the low level. Faster queues, too. And your argument for doing random over select dungeons was because of the rewards. Which are transmute, exp, and research jewelry to my understanding. Covered transmute, exp can be obtained in many ways, and the jewelry can be bought.

Edit: I think a “select all non dlc” and “select all dlc” button in the select dungeon menu would be great though. Helps keep the randomness feel and saves all that clicking time.

This is why no one queues. People more often than not queue for rewards. Take away rewards, noone will queue. These checkbox solutions are not solutions but a poorly thought over workaround that does nothing. The better the incentive, the more participants you have

People who aren't queuing now because dlc is part of the pool, would not suddenly join the dlc queue.

In addition, people who dlc queue now only for the rewards would leave the dlc queue.

This would destroy the dlc queue and the express purpose of the activity finder.

I don't think the playerbase should be split up to the extreme detriment of one group of players just to give rewards to a different group of players that are currently choosing to pass on them. I think it's inherently unfair to split the playerbase to such a large extent when it is guaranteed to break the game for one group.

Well, maybe my argument wasn't targeted at you then.

To be more serious: I honestly don't care much if zos decides to go the route of seperate instances or difficulty sliders (if they are done in a way, which enables me to use various builds without nerfing myself). Both is fine for me, as I'm asking primarily for better immersion, not higher difficulty as an end in itself.

Your example regarding the increasing difficulties with recieving help is tragic of course. But to be honest: Are you really astonished, that more and more "veterans" decide to outright refuse helping "more casual" players? That won't get better anytime soon out of various reasons, which I don't want to explain right here. But it was foreseeable for years, as large portions of the game are already broken for this group.

spartaxoxo

No. I am not surprised. I have said that they need to do something about this topic from my first post on here. I knew this game would lose vets if they did nothing.

I didn't want an option that I felt would separate players and cause content to be cut (no longer a concern as Q4 dlc has been dropped), but I did and still do want something to be done. It's obvious to me that it is necessary. Challenge banners and a slider would do a lot to make that happen without separating players. I still hold out hope it will one day become a thing.

Arunei

martygod12 wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

martygod12 wrote: »

Came back to ESO after like three years. Saw this sticky topic and was super excited, that maybe something will finally be done about the biggest issue I had with this game back then ...

Then I saw, that the original post is from 2021 lol ... so nothing is gonna change ever

Most likely, the number of people on both sides of this with rather charged feelings leaves the developers understandably wanting to step rather cautiously.

Really dont understand what the big problem is. Just make two instances of the zone. One with normal difficulty which will be same as it is now and one "hard/veteran" one with increased difficulty. Bam both sides are happy and everyone can play the way they prefers it, and switch it up as they likes.

I myself know I would definitely use both types for example. Normal for when I harvest nodes, doing excavations etc. And really dont want to waste time with every mob I come across.

And when I have my questing mode on, I would switch to vet for some Challenge. Not necesarily every mob must be a death thread, but at least the Story bosses should last more then three seconds in the fight lol

It isn't nearly as simple as that.

For one, creating vet instances for EVERY ZONE would take far too much time and effort. It would also cause the game to become that much bigger, because you basically need two versions of every zone.

The bigger problem is you are never going to please everyone with a flat thing like this. How do they know how hard is hard enough, or is too hard? How many times do they add a Veteran Vet version of each zone for the people who think it's too easy still? How do they handle the people who claim it's too hard but they still feel like Overland is too easy and thus they want ZOS to add another instance so they're happy?

Adding vet Overland will not work. It would take too many resources and there's 0 way to balance it in a way that would even make it worth implementing. People would claim it's either too hard or still too easy. The only thing that would realistically work is some sort of slider that affects individual players rather than affecting the world.

martygod12

Arunei wrote: »

martygod12 wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

martygod12 wrote: »

Came back to ESO after like three years. Saw this sticky topic and was super excited, that maybe something will finally be done about the biggest issue I had with this game back then ...

Then I saw, that the original post is from 2021 lol ... so nothing is gonna change ever

Most likely, the number of people on both sides of this with rather charged feelings leaves the developers understandably wanting to step rather cautiously.

Really dont understand what the big problem is. Just make two instances of the zone. One with normal difficulty which will be same as it is now and one "hard/veteran" one with increased difficulty. Bam both sides are happy and everyone can play the way they prefers it, and switch it up as they likes.

I myself know I would definitely use both types for example. Normal for when I harvest nodes, doing excavations etc. And really dont want to waste time with every mob I come across.

And when I have my questing mode on, I would switch to vet for some Challenge. Not necesarily every mob must be a death thread, but at least the Story bosses should last more then three seconds in the fight lol

It isn't nearly as simple as that.

For one, creating vet instances for EVERY ZONE would take far too much time and effort. It would also cause the game to become that much bigger, because you basically need two versions of every zone.

The bigger problem is you are never going to please everyone with a flat thing like this. How do they know how hard is hard enough, or is too hard? How many times do they add a Veteran Vet version of each zone for the people who think it's too easy still? How do they handle the people who claim it's too hard but they still feel like Overland is too easy and thus they want ZOS to add another instance so they're happy?

Adding vet Overland will not work. It would take too many resources and there's 0 way to balance it in a way that would even make it worth implementing. People would claim it's either too hard or still too easy. The only thing that would realistically work is some sort of slider that affects individual players rather than affecting the world.

Yeah you have a point, that probably wont work. But some kind of slider or debuff also wont work imo.

Cause there are not enough solo instances in the quests/zones where it actually would have some effect. Otherwise you can weaken yourself all you want, but there will always be some other player who Is not debuffed and will steamroll everything around including the enemies you are currently fighting.

Dr_Con

I feel the dev team did a great job with Necrom. There's certain content and WBs you can comfortably do solo, while there's other things you need a group for. Companions are becoming more and more of a useful tool for solo players. When I first posted on this topic last year I had little expectation for improvement.

As for the recent PVE cyrodiil/IC posts, no risk no reward. I think players forget this.

k9mouse

I like thr easy overland combat. I have many alts abd dailies. Thus, I play chars with God Skills to chars who are very weak. I do not have time to make all 23+ alts into God's to do Vet combat fir overland content. I want run in, do the content, ran out: thus easy and fast!

Aggrovious

Okay so here me out,

Thieves can not jump on top of almost all buildings, moving boats (High Isle comes to mind), and other structures. My question is, why? As a consumer, this does not enhance my RP experience in the overland world. There is a huge lack of it actually, as most RPers sit in a circle or whisper NSFW. Allow us more ways to parkour for the sake of messing around in overland content. Make roofs walkable and not the annoying slide down due to invisible walls. I don't care if I clip.

Invisible walls kill exploration. Not just in PAID homes, but also in the world. Let me climb that mountain. If I get stuck, I can just FT out or "/stuck". Let me climb. "It is an MMO," but is also Elder Scrolls!

Add a glider to the game. Maybe it is too much to add flying mounts in the game, but the ability to glide is possible. It will encourage more population in the world and make it feel less dead. Just please don't put it in crates. You can put the styles of the gliders in crates

Questings in Overland are dreadfully for new players. If you get every DLC and start the game, you will have numerous NPCs nagging you to do their quest. You will then play them out of order and/or get lost in the lore of the game. You should reduce this somehow. When I first started, I had to google [snip] was going on. That is not good.

Overland NPCs are annoying. Consider re-doing the voice lines for better immersion because this one does not know, but he hopes his family is DRAGONS.

I find the combat in Overland's to be more tedious than easy. Aggroing a volcanic spider the second you are about to harvest is the worst. It's even more annoying when they run away. It would be awesome for aggro enemies to have a longer aggro meter so I can just AOE all of them at once and go about my day. I read through the comments and saw that players want a difficulty toggle but with no extra reward. I think that's silly, we should be rewarded for putting more time into something. It does not have to be a new mount, but skin or dye would be cool enough.

[edited for profanity bypass]

Cireous

Do it too, pleeeeeeeeaaaaassseeeeeeeeeeee.

Tornaad

@Hurbster posted a link to a video in a thread that got closed for what Lord of the Rings did relating to addressing the desire for harder overland difficulty. I think it has promise and could very much fit into an expansion to the Undaunted.
Here is the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4HuOi01x-Y

Maitsukas

Overland isn't a Trial and should not be treated as such. You don't really need to dish out 100k DPS on every single bandit, kwama, zombie, etc. you come across.

I play with a PvE tank build, which already affects the time it takes me defeat enemies. Most of the Base Game World Bosses take about 5 to 10 minutes for me to defeat (from just spamming Jabs). For storyline bosses, I like to take my time with killing them, just so I could hear every bit of dialogue they might say.

Tornaad

Maitsukas wrote: »

Overland isn't a Trial and should not be treated as such. You don't really need to dish out 100k DPS on every single bandit, kwama, zombie, etc. you come across.

I play with a PvE tank build, which already affects the time it takes me defeat enemies. Most of the Base Game World Bosses take about 5 to 10 minutes for me to defeat (from just spamming Jabs). For storyline bosses, I like to take my time with killing them, just so I could hear every bit of dialogue they might say.

I love questing. That is literally my favorite part of the game. If I could get the option to turn the difficulty up on overland, I would literally take every last character I have through every single quest in the game. We're not asking for your experience to be changed, we are asking for the option to change our experience. Is there something wrong with that?

SilverBride

Tornaad wrote: »

We're not asking for your experience to be changed, we are asking for the option to change our experience. Is there something wrong with that?

No, there is nothing wrong with that. We all have our own preferences when it comes to how we like to play and what we find enjoyable, and it's perfectly acceptable to make suggestions for what we'd like to see.

But not every suggestion will be implemented because what is good for the game in general is the priority.

Tornaad

SilverBride wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

We're not asking for your experience to be changed, we are asking for the option to change our experience. Is there something wrong with that?

No, there is nothing wrong with that. We all have our own preferences when it comes to how we like to play and what we find enjoyable, and it's perfectly acceptable to make suggestions for what we'd like to see.

But not every suggestion will be implemented because what is good for the game in general is the priority.

I'm not looking for every suggestion to be implemented. What I am hoping for is for both sides of this to get together to build a suggestion that everyone will be happy with.

I understand that there are a lot of people who are happy with how things are. There are also a great number of people who are not happy with how things are.

If both sides come together, we can come up with a combined suggestion that preserves what we have and adds to it an option that will let more people also find what they want.

From there, with a unified community, we might be able get something achieved while preserving what we have and love.

SilverBride

Tornaad wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

We're not asking for your experience to be changed, we are asking for the option to change our experience. Is there something wrong with that?

No, there is nothing wrong with that. We all have our own preferences when it comes to how we like to play and what we find enjoyable, and it's perfectly acceptable to make suggestions for what we'd like to see.

But not every suggestion will be implemented because what is good for the game in general is the priority.

I'm not looking for every suggestion to be implemented. What I am hoping for is for both sides of this to get together to build a suggestion that everyone will be happy with.

I understand that there are a lot of people who are happy with how things are. There are also a great number of people who are not happy with how things are.

If both sides come together, we can come up with a combined suggestion that preserves what we have and adds to it an option that will let more people also find what they want.

From there, with a unified community, we might be able get something achieved while preserving what we have and love.

Players that do not want a change aren't responsible to find a solution for those that do. Despite that, many (myself included) support some of the suggestions that have been presented here. But we aren't the ones making the decisions.

Tornaad

SilverBride wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

We're not asking for your experience to be changed, we are asking for the option to change our experience. Is there something wrong with that?

No, there is nothing wrong with that. We all have our own preferences when it comes to how we like to play and what we find enjoyable, and it's perfectly acceptable to make suggestions for what we'd like to see.

But not every suggestion will be implemented because what is good for the game in general is the priority.

I'm not looking for every suggestion to be implemented. What I am hoping for is for both sides of this to get together to build a suggestion that everyone will be happy with.

I understand that there are a lot of people who are happy with how things are. There are also a great number of people who are not happy with how things are.

If both sides come together, we can come up with a combined suggestion that preserves what we have and adds to it an option that will let more people also find what they want.

From there, with a unified community, we might be able get something achieved while preserving what we have and love.

Players that do not want a change aren't responsible to find a solution for those that do. Despite that, many (myself included) support some of the suggestions that have been presented here. But we aren't the ones making the decisions.

What I would hope for, is to have those who want to preserve things, act as moderators who work in harmony with those who want change, providing constructive feedback as we try to have an actual discussion about what could be done to enable more people to be happy with the game.

SilverBride

Tornaad wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Players that do not want a change aren't responsible to find a solution for those that do. Despite that, many (myself included) support some of the suggestions that have been presented here. But we aren't the ones making the decisions.

What I would hope for, is to have those who want to preserve things, act as moderators who work in harmony with those who want change, providing constructive feedback as we try to have an actual discussion about what could be done to enable more people to be happy with the game.

Constructive feedback isn't just feedback in favor of a suggestion. Reasons not to implement a suggestion is also constructive because it presents a different preference and view.

As I stated, many that are happy with overland just as it is have supported some of the ideas presented. But this does not mean that they have to stop presenting their side or their concerns.

Tornaad

.

SilverBride wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Players that do not want a change aren't responsible to find a solution for those that do. Despite that, many (myself included) support some of the suggestions that have been presented here. But we aren't the ones making the decisions.

What I would hope for, is to have those who want to preserve things, act as moderators who work in harmony with those who want change, providing constructive feedback as we try to have an actual discussion about what could be done to enable more people to be happy with the game.

Constructive feedback isn't just feedback in favor of a suggestion. Reasons not to implement a suggestion is also constructive because it presents a different preference and view.

As I stated, many that are happy with overland just as it is have supported some of the ideas presented. But this does not mean that they have to stop presenting their side or their concerns.

You are right constructive feedback is not and should not be all positive. And while there should be negative feedback given, with constructive feedback, it should be given with the intention of building up.

In all reality, probably the best thing that could be done would be to get more people on both sides to stop feeling like we are on different sides.

SilverBride

Tornaad wrote: »

.

SilverBride wrote: »

Constructive feedback isn't just feedback in favor of a suggestion. Reasons not to implement a suggestion is also constructive because it presents a different preference and view.

As I stated, many that are happy with overland just as it is have supported some of the ideas presented. But this does not mean that they have to stop presenting their side or their concerns.

You are right constructive feedback is not and should not be all positive. And while there should be negative feedback given, with constructive feedback, it should be given with the intention of building up.

In all reality, probably the best thing that could be done would be to get more people on both sides to stop feeling like we are on different sides.

Feedback that some players are happy with overland difficulty as it is now is positive feedback about the current system.

We can't expect everyone to work toward goals that are not beneficial to how they like to play, so let's just leave it at that.

Tornaad

SilverBride wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

.

SilverBride wrote: »

Constructive feedback isn't just feedback in favor of a suggestion. Reasons not to implement a suggestion is also constructive because it presents a different preference and view.

As I stated, many that are happy with overland just as it is have supported some of the ideas presented. But this does not mean that they have to stop presenting their side or their concerns.

You are right constructive feedback is not and should not be all positive. And while there should be negative feedback given, with constructive feedback, it should be given with the intention of building up.

In all reality, probably the best thing that could be done would be to get more people on both sides to stop feeling like we are on different sides.

Feedback that some players are happy with overland difficulty as it is now is positive feedback about the current system.

We can't expect everyone to work toward goals that are not beneficial to how they like to play, so let's just leave it at that.

You're right we can't expect everyone. That's just unrealistic. But we can make the choice for ourselves and in my experience, when we do, then others will often join us. And even in those rare cases when no one steps up to follow and you take that journey alone, I have found it to still be worth the effort. And either way, if we let others' resistance hold us back, then we will never achieve anything. That is what I am doing. That is what I have experienced. I hope this time around I will not be standing alone, but if I do end up standing alone again, I will keep trying, because to me, the cause is worth the effort.

Seraph_69

TLDR: Overland content feels ridiculously easy to a player with CP points - please adjust the scaling.

Just want to add my voice. I have played since launch but very casually, usually playing the most recent DLC and quickly going back to other MMO's, taking my subscription money elsewhere. (My CP is around 500 I have never played long at max level outside of doing the story for the new DLC)

The Arcanist has changed that pattern and I am now about 2 months in to playing the game daily and have improved my character to the point where I have pre-trial BiS gear.

I am enjoying the end game dungeons and have tried a normal mode trial and the difficulty level feels good for my gear.

I am now going though the DLC's in order before Necrom. I've completed Thieves Guild, Dark Brotherhood and Craglorn stories and maps. Craglorn group areas felt engaging to solo, but have now moved on to Orsinium and some old EP campaign quests for (achievements to buy a house) and the 'epicness' of the stories are being greatly dumbed down by how easy stuff dies. I press my 1 key and normal mobs die instantly. Maybe 3 or 4 buttons and the end boss of a storyline (who you have spent several hours of engaging story to get to) is dead.

I understand people saying there other places for harder content, Thats fine. But the story and engagement of players playing through content with even low CP is affected by how easy the battles are. I would love to play through all the DLC's to experience their stories but I am on the verge of quitting.

ZOS - you have a great scaling system in place since One Tamriel. PLEASE dial up the AI, damage, and health of overland main story enemies, zones and bosses or risk losing engaged players like me. I am not a hardcore player but this difficulty scaling at CP level is beyond ridiculous.

Tornaad

Seraph_69 wrote: »

TLDR: Overland content feels ridiculously easy to a player with CP points - please adjust the scaling.

Just want to add my voice. I have played since launch but very casually, usually playing the most recent DLC and quickly going back to other MMO's, taking my subscription money elsewhere. (My CP is around 500 I have never played long at max level outside of doing the story for the new DLC)

The Arcanist has changed that pattern and I am now about 2 months in to playing the game daily and have improved my character to the point where I have pre-trial BiS gear.

I am enjoying the end game dungeons and have tried a normal mode trial and the difficulty level feels good for my gear.

I am now going though the DLC's in order before Necrom. I've completed Thieves Guild, Dark Brotherhood and Craglorn stories and maps. Craglorn group areas felt engaging to solo, but have now moved on to Orsinium and some old EP campaign quests for (achievements to buy a house) and the 'epicness' of the stories are being greatly dumbed down by how easy stuff dies. I press my 1 key and normal mobs die instantly. Maybe 3 or 4 buttons and the end boss of a storyline (who you have spent several hours of engaging story to get to) is dead.

I understand people saying there other places for harder content, Thats fine. But the story and engagement of players playing through content with even low CP is affected by how easy the battles are. I would love to play through all the DLC's to experience their stories but I am on the verge of quitting.

ZOS - you have a great scaling system in place since One Tamriel. PLEASE dial up the AI, damage, and health of overland main story enemies, zones and bosses or risk losing engaged players like me. I am not a hardcore player but this difficulty scaling at CP level is beyond ridiculous.

That's an interesting take, just focus on adjusting the scaling when dealing with (what I am assuming is) high CP characters. I can actually see that. It then preserves the experience for the newer players and those who do not have as much CP, while making things better for those who have more resources to use.

One thing I have also noticed, is that the gear you use, also plays a huge role in how difficult things feel. For example, I was hoping to write an ESO themed epic poem, but found that I could not get the difficulty right on the overland to capture that epic experience I needed for my poem. My initial attempt at creating my own harder overland involved just using all level 1 gear, and while that was certainly harder, it was still missing something. I've been trying that with my Arcanist. Once I realized that was not quite what I was looking for, I then started slowly adding a bit more gear of my current character level (34 right now). It was not until I started adding a few set pieces that the difficulty started really changing. I am still trying to find the happy point of difficulty I have wanted to be able find the inspiration to write my poem, but I have realized that if they were to let the same system that lets us change our builds also store gear with that build, it would help a lot.

TaSheen

Well, except for me - I have a couple of accounts on PC NA with 1k- CP and I do NOT want harder overland. I like not having to mess with anything in overland. Quest line bosses are quite hard enough for me with age-related reflex issues and 750 ms + ping (on a good day).

So something like that would prevent me from using my mains to do the things they do in overland.... Unless of course it was an optional toggle.

SilverBride

Seraph_69 wrote: »

ZOS - you have a great scaling system in place since One Tamriel. PLEASE dial up the AI, damage, and health of overland main story enemies, zones and bosses or risk losing engaged players like me. I am not a hardcore player but this difficulty scaling at CP level is beyond ridiculous.

If they do they risk losing a lot of players like myself that play every day and enjoy a casual questing and story experience.

I am CP 2015 and while I wouldn't call myself hardcore because I don't run trials, I do run veteran dungeons almost every day. I also have gotten into PvP and rolled a new character just for that purpose, and my friend has been taking me to Imperial City to kill the bosses there, and fight other players we run across.

I do enjoy different types of gameplay and ESO offers many choices for those. But I also enjoy no stress questing and do every quest in every zone on all of my characters. I do not want this taken from me.

SilverBride

Tornaad wrote: »

That's an interesting take, just focus on adjusting the scaling when dealing with (what I am assuming is) high CP characters. I can actually see that. It then preserves the experience for the newer players and those who do not have as much CP, while making things better for those who have more resources to use.

It would make it worse for me because I don't want added difficulty in the story. There are plenty of places for a challenge. Sometime we just want to enjoy stress free questing.

Marcus684

ESO has the full spectrum of combat difficulty, from AFK-easy overland to the most challenging arenas and vet trials, and they need all of it to appeal to the full spectrum of players' desires for combat difficulty.

Highly-skilled players asking for an across-the-board buff of overland difficulty is no different than other players calling for nerfs to high-difficulty content. You're wanting to ruin someone else's experience to satisfy your desires, when ZOS has already provided you with content that meets your combat challenge needs, which is just selfish.

Tornaad

SilverBride wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

That's an interesting take, just focus on adjusting the scaling when dealing with (what I am assuming is) high CP characters. I can actually see that. It then preserves the experience for the newer players and those who do not have as much CP, while making things better for those who have more resources to use.

It would make it worse for me because I don't want added difficulty in the story. There are plenty of places for a challenge. Sometime we just want to enjoy stress free questing.

Good to know. Thank you for bringing that up.

Shagreth

Took a break from this thread and I've concluded that both parties (Easy Vs. Hard) are wrong. The people that want an easygoing experience are probably the ones that are keeping the lights on over at ZOS HQ, hence why we haven't really seen anything about this. I personally find the overland experience to be a joke, the right answer for this game probably lies in options, but they probably won't give us any, because we (the people that like the challenge) are in the minority. Small loss, probably, and too much trouble implementing a system such as this.

Tornaad

Marcus684 wrote: »

ESO has the full spectrum of combat difficulty, from AFK-easy overland to the most challenging arenas and vet trials, and they need all of it to appeal to the full spectrum of players' desires for combat difficulty.

Highly-skilled players asking for an across-the-board buff of overland difficulty is no different than other players calling for nerfs to high-difficulty content. You're wanting to ruin someone else's experience to satisfy your desires, when ZOS has already provided you with content that meets your combat challenge needs, which is just selfish.

I don't know if I qualify as a highly skilled player or not, but I remember painfully an experience I had when I first got started.

ESO is the first MMO I have ever played and will likely be the only.

I got started in ESO right about the time one Tameriel came out. My first character was a nightblade that I wanted to turn into a sneaky bow based character and I had such a hard time achieving anything that a boss you run into as part of completing the Coldharbour story (I think it was the one that lets you access the top of the map) that I could not defeat on my own. I probably died a dozen times before desperately crying out in zone chat and getting help.

I deleted that character and started over.
Now, I've been able to get flawless Conqueror on VMA, I've been able to solo many group dungeons and even some veteran dungeons. But I still remember the first character I created and how close I got to quitting the game.

While I am now at a place where I want to have the option to have harder overland content, I will never forget that first character and how hard it was for me. I guess, I should say, I never want to forget that moment because, there are likely a lot of other people just starting this game, who are in the same place.

I had to read @Seraph_69 's post twice to make sure I understood it. And it was only on the second time through that I realized what they were suggesting. @Seraph_69 is not suggesting a universal difficulty increase, but one that targets higher CP players. And while I find the perspective interesting, and insightful, I do not think I would want to see it implemented because, I would want an option that I can turn on and off at my leisure. I was not instantly opposed to it because it did not affect the experience of a new player just starting the game.

TaSheen

Actually. Nev'mind. I'll either dieal with whatever happens, or I won't.