Overland Content Feedback Thread

spartaxoxo · February 2

TaSheen wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I wonder how that new ring will feel in overland. The one that disables set bonuses.

What new ring?

Oh sorry, it's a necklace.

Necklace – Torc of the Last Ayleid King

1 – Disable all other item set bonuses and increase your damage done by 20%, reduce your damage taken by 20%, and increase your healing done by 20%.
Developer Comment:
This item set actively disables any other item set bonuses you have equipped, including other 1-piece bonuses.

TaSheen · February 2

spartaxoxo wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I wonder how that new ring will feel in overland. The one that disables set bonuses.

What new ring?

Oh sorry, it's a necklace.

Necklace – Torc of the Last Ayleid King

1 – Disable all other item set bonuses and increase your damage done by 20%, reduce your damage taken by 20%, and increase your healing done by 20%.
Developer Comment:
This item set actively disables any other item set bonuses you have equipped, including other 1-piece bonuses.

Hmm. That's interesting. For my situation, that actually might be - something i would at least try. Depending on where the leads drop of course....

Thanks!

RaptorRodeoGod · February 2

If the Torq of the Last Aleid King is the answer to overland difficulty, giving it any kind of buff is counter intuitive. Sets are also not the only issue, the ring does nothing for CP, another major source of power for players.

Additionally, having it disable sets feels kinda bad. I want overland to be harder, but I also want to see my fancy set procs, even if this ring were to reduce their damage by a lot.

If it's not the answer to overland difficulty, who is the intended audience for this ring? This seems to be a bit point of confusion among players from what I've seen on the forums and YouTube.

Kendaric · February 2

RaptorRodeoGod wrote: »

If the Torq of the Last Aleid King is the answer to overland difficulty, giving it any kind of buff is counter intuitive. Sets are also not the only issue, the ring does nothing for CP, another major source of power for players.

Additionally, having it disable sets feels kinda bad. I want overland to be harder, but I also want to see my fancy set procs, even if this ring were to reduce their damage by a lot.

If it's not the answer to overland difficulty, who is the intended audience for this ring? This seems to be a bit point of confusion among players from what I've seen on the forums and YouTube.

I'd even say CP and bloated stats are actually more of an issue than the sets themselves. Though proc sets are of course part of the problem in my opinion.

spartaxoxo · February 2

RaptorRodeoGod wrote: »

If the Torq of the Last Aleid King is the answer to overland difficulty, giving it any kind of buff is counter intuitive. Sets are also not the only issue, the ring does nothing for CP, another major source of power for players.

Additionally, having it disable sets feels kinda bad. I want overland to be harder, but I also want to see my fancy set procs, even if this ring were to reduce their damage by a lot.

If it's not the answer to overland difficulty, who is the intended audience for this ring? This seems to be a bit point of confusion among players from what I've seen on the forums and YouTube.

Honestly, this is a pretty fair point. But I can't see who else it could be for. Maybe it's just them quietly dipping their toes in water to see if anyone would be open to making things harder for themselves.

I intend to try it with this idea in mind, at any rate.

disky · February 2

spartaxoxo wrote: »

RaptorRodeoGod wrote: »

If the Torq of the Last Aleid King is the answer to overland difficulty, giving it any kind of buff is counter intuitive. Sets are also not the only issue, the ring does nothing for CP, another major source of power for players.

Additionally, having it disable sets feels kinda bad. I want overland to be harder, but I also want to see my fancy set procs, even if this ring were to reduce their damage by a lot.

If it's not the answer to overland difficulty, who is the intended audience for this ring? This seems to be a bit point of confusion among players from what I've seen on the forums and YouTube.

Honestly, this is a pretty fair point. But I can't see who else it could be for. Maybe it's just them quietly dipping their toes in water to see if anyone would be open to making things harder for themselves.

I intend to try it with this idea in mind, at any rate.

If that's the case then it's a failure before even being released. Interfering with builds by making people take a piece of gear in order to make the game harder is a silly way to do it, when people could simply not use gear, or use sub-standard gear, or a number of other things people already do which don't have much of an effect. Those who want challenge find the overland game too easy even if they're wearing no armor at all.

spartaxoxo · February 2

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

RaptorRodeoGod wrote: »

If the Torq of the Last Aleid King is the answer to overland difficulty, giving it any kind of buff is counter intuitive. Sets are also not the only issue, the ring does nothing for CP, another major source of power for players.

Additionally, having it disable sets feels kinda bad. I want overland to be harder, but I also want to see my fancy set procs, even if this ring were to reduce their damage by a lot.

If it's not the answer to overland difficulty, who is the intended audience for this ring? This seems to be a bit point of confusion among players from what I've seen on the forums and YouTube.

Honestly, this is a pretty fair point. But I can't see who else it could be for. Maybe it's just them quietly dipping their toes in water to see if anyone would be open to making things harder for themselves.

I intend to try it with this idea in mind, at any rate.

If that's the case then it's a failure before even being released. Interfering with builds by making people take a piece of gear in order to make the game harder is a silly way to do it, when people could simply not use gear, or use sub-standard gear, or a number of other things people already do which don't have much of an effect. Those who want challenge find the overland game too easy even if they're wearing no armor at all.

No argument there. I didn't want it to come in the form of gear because then I can't use the gear I picked, which takes away from the RPG elements of action RPG.

Four_Fingers · February 3

No matter what they do some will not be happy, don't hold your breath for a souls like game.

disky · February 3

Four_Fingers wrote: »

No matter what they do some will not be happy, don't hold your breath for a souls like game.

Okay, but is saying "well, not EVERYONE will be happy" a useful contribution? A lot of people are unhappy and want something, and we've talked quite a bit about the potential solutions, eventually arriving at a number of things that we feel could work for most people. Throwing up our hands because a fraction of people might not be happy with the result feels like giving up. If I'm not mistaken, this thread is the largest one on the entire forum, so it's not as if there isn't a desire for things to change.

Four_Fingers · February 3

A little hyperbolic don't you think?
It is a fact you can't please everybody, and no one is giving up as this game continues to evolve and no one said this set is the only thing the devs may adjust in the future.

disky · February 3

Four_Fingers wrote: »

A little hyperbolic don't you think?
It is a fact you can't please everybody, and no one is giving up as this game continues to evolve and no one said this set is the only thing the devs may adjust in the future.

I agree completely, it's just that we've already been discussing practicable solutions for a while.

Elsonso · February 3

disky wrote: »

Four_Fingers wrote: »

A little hyperbolic don't you think?
It is a fact you can't please everybody, and no one is giving up as this game continues to evolve and no one said this set is the only thing the devs may adjust in the future.

I agree completely, it's just that we've already been discussing practicable solutions for a while.

To be clear, we have been discussing player-generated solutions for a while. Practicable is not exactly the same thing.

TaSheen · February 3

Not to mention the devs haven't said anything about considering solutions - other than IA....

disky · February 3

Elsonso wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Four_Fingers wrote: »

A little hyperbolic don't you think?
It is a fact you can't please everybody, and no one is giving up as this game continues to evolve and no one said this set is the only thing the devs may adjust in the future.

I agree completely, it's just that we've already been discussing practicable solutions for a while.

To be clear, we have been discussing player-generated solutions for a while. Practicable is not exactly the same thing.

Practicable meaning feasible, in that they could potentially be implemented. I'm not saying they will be.

Rex-Umbra · February 6

Why no mention of improved overland yet? Its still bland npcs dieing before even fighting back.

Kendaric · February 6

Rex-Umbra wrote: »

Why no mention of improved overland yet? Its still bland npcs dieing before even fighting back.

The dev stance regarding overland content has been quoted several times in this thread already. You can easily look it up...

Jyiiga · February 10

Dropped ESO during Elsweyr. Check back periodically. Have wished they would copy something like LOTROs outdoor difficulty settings. Game simply isn't engaging when you can auto attack everything in the world to death with a spoon.

Shagreth · February 15

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Another year of ignoring The Elder Scrolls Online because they won't give us a simple debuff memento as the absolute bare minimum.

Time to update my signature. Important milestone.

They don't care for us, we are not the ones keeping the lights open over at Zenimax HQ. Rich Lambert made it clear: you want difficulty? Hit a dungeon or two. I have much more to say about this but it will seem like I'm trying to be divisive and probably get another warning. What saddens me the most is that even the players themselves are against this.

disky · February 15

Shagreth wrote: »

What saddens me the most is that even the players themselves are against this.

The players that are against it feel that way because they don't understand that if properly implemented it will have zero impact on their lives. If it were released to test and proven that there is zero impact to their experience then I have little doubt that perception would change.

FlopsyPrince · February 18

disky wrote: »

Four_Fingers wrote: »

A little hyperbolic don't you think?
It is a fact you can't please everybody, and no one is giving up as this game continues to evolve and no one said this set is the only thing the devs may adjust in the future.

I agree completely, it's just that we've already been discussing practicable solutions for a while.

This thread was started before I took a 1-year+ break from the game.

Same arguments, same lack of change. Not much will happen, unless something finally does.

I said it very early in the thread, but changing overland is significantly harder than many seem to realize. A blanket fix would not work, fine tuning would be needed with LOTS of that!

And people complain when I want a small quality of life fix....

disky · February 20

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

Same arguments, same lack of change. Not much will happen, unless something finally does.

Nothing will ever change if we stop shouting about it.

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

I said it very early in the thread, but changing overland is significantly harder than many seem to realize. A blanket fix would not work, fine tuning would be needed with LOTS of that!

First, I'd love to hear your explanation for why this will be so incredibly difficult as to be prohibitive, when ZOS has allocated resources for projects which seem to have little impact for players relative to their complexity, like Tales of Tribute.

Second, ZOS has said that they don't want to do it because they don't want to alienate players who enjoy the difficulty as it is, but we've been talking about a way to implement it which doesn't affect them. I don't think that implementing it is an issue of difficulty. It's the fear that the perception of this feature could cause backlash before it hits live.

TaSheen · February 20

I doubt this is going to change no matter how much you "shout" about it.

None of us know what might be difficult or problematic with an ancient game engine and original devs long gone, leaving mega spaghetti code behind.

And it doesn't matter what any of us think (I'm personally fine with optional "tinkering" - but ZOS doesn't seem to want to do "optional" in this particula instance) - the bottom line is that ZOS will do what they want.

And considering some previous things that have turned out NOT at all the way people thought was going to happen, I really really prefer that no one rocks the boat....

disky · February 20

TaSheen wrote: »

I doubt this is going to change no matter how much you "shout" about it.

That may be but the point is if no one ever says that they think something is wrong then there will be no perception that anything needs to change. If we all placidly go about hating a huge part of the game and leave in frustration/disappointment, then ZOS will never have had a chance to improve things for those people who love the game and want to stay but simply find it too boring to continue playing.

TaSheen wrote: »

None of us know what might be difficult or problematic with an ancient game engine and original devs long gone, leaving mega spaghetti code behind.

Agreed, but I don't think it can be ignored that there is similar code in other parts of the game. It's not as if this is an insurmountable task.

TaSheen wrote: »

And it doesn't matter what any of us think (I'm personally fine with optional "tinkering" - but ZOS doesn't seem to want to do "optional" in this particula instance) - the bottom line is that ZOS will do what they want.

We don't know that they don't want to do an optional system. They're simply not doing anything at all. That's not an indication of their design preference.

TaSheen wrote: »

And considering some previous things that have turned out NOT at all the way people thought was going to happen, I really really prefer that no one rocks the boat....

Yeah, you're the exact type of person that ZOS is afraid of upsetting. But my counterpoint is that this is what a test server is for. If you develop the thing, test it and prove that it doesn't affect other players, what's the problem?

Anumaril · March 3

The state of overland content
Given the tepid response from developers about overland content difficulty, I don't find it realistic to hope that they will directly improve overland content itself. E.g., by dynamically scaling the competency of overland enemies, scaling their damage, making them behave more intelligently, scaling their health, etc.

And as much as it would be an ideal solution for everyone involved, it also doesn't seem like the devs are interested in adding a switch in the game options to make difficulty scaling more dramatic for the player that enables the option (taking advantage of the scaling already present since One Tamriel, just boosted for those who want extra challenge).

The remaining options
What realistically remains is having the devs implement some way for us to simply debuff ourselves directly, reducing our health pool, health regen, damage output, etc. That way they don't need to do anything with scaling, and don't need to even touch overland content per se.

While this could be done, again, via a game option that gives the player a passive debuff while enabled, I find it more likely that we'll have to take advantage of existing systems in-game to do this ourselves. Scribing seems to be the best shot at this. If we were allowed to make a custom passive spell (akin to Magelight), load it with a bunch of debuffs, then we could wear that ability on our action bar and give ourselves all those passive debuffs. This would just require ZOS to allow us to make such a spell in the first place with Scribing...

Vampirism as a solution?
Alternatively, as I've said in some other threads, a solution could be using the existing vampire debuffs. I don't know if any of you have tried doing overland content with maximum vampire debuffs, but it's quite challenging. Not having any health regen and having to rely on food/potions makes you feel more grounded in the world than ever before, and it makes you approach packs of enemies with more caution than before (kind of like in real life: taking on more than one opponent would be difficult for anyone). Of course this does nothing to limit your damage, which will still be very high. But it's a better solution than nothing at all, and addresses the issue of the player being virtually invincible.

The problem with the vampire solution is the chalk-white skin. Not everyone (like me) who wants to take advantage of those debuffs is playing a character who is a vampire. My character is a noble sorcerer from the Summerset Isles, and has deep olive skin and blue eyes. I don't want my character to suddenly have skin the colour of fresh-fallen snow just so I can have a better overland gameplay — it would take me out of the whole experience. So the solution would be a Mortal Mask skin for vampires. If we can enjoy those challenging debuffs without the chalk-white skin, I think it could be a genuine (partial) solution to our overland problems.

disky · March 4

Anumaril wrote: »

snip

I appreciate the thoughtful post, but I don't see that it's necessary for those of us who want this to have to give anything up in the form of bar slots or status as a living being.

I don't expect you to read through pages of discussion if you're just coming into the thread and have something to say but we have talked about the idea of things like food and gear enabling the effects that proponents of difficulty options want to have. Personally I don't think something like a stackable food would be the worst idea, but anything that interferes with a build like gear or skills is a non-starter. If someone is going to deliberately handicap themselves, at least let them play a build without needing to make changes just for the privilege. Builds are one of the joys of this game and there are other ways to implement this kind of feature without needing to interfere with them.

Not everyone wants the black mark of vampirism on their character, even if there is zero physical manifestation. I have a single vampire in my roster of alts and I prefer it to stay that way. Even if their stories aren't laid bare for everyone, each one is playing out in my head, and only one of them is a vampire. And that's exactly why I'm still here - without the ability to create characters that I love, I would probably have left long ago. It's not just the skin, it's the fact that I know my character is a vampire when I don't want my character to be a vampire.

All of this being said, I think that any amount of work put forth into one of these ideas could just as easily be put into creating the ideal system - one which is enabled outside of the character, either diegetically or from a menu. LotRO has implemented a system similar to what we've been discussing and people seem happy with it. Personally I think ZOS can do it better but the point is that the ideas are out there and they're not impossible.

Shagreth · March 4

I actually went to some of my old mmorpg's recently, gave them a try again and I have to say: How the hell did they allow the powercreep in ESO to become so massive? It's worse than neglect, this is almost criminal to not to care for your own game to this degree, and then also go ahead and claim "well, can't be helped, seems like the majority of our playerbase enjoys it that way". It's as if the majority of the playerbase are handicapped. I refuse to believe that, it's pure neglect, this is not by choice, because this kind of design philosophy for the majority of the content shouldn't be allowed, I refuse to believe that all of the devs are fine with the state of the game.

Let's see how many pages this needs to get before they lift a finger to do anything. I was hoping the 10th anniversary would be some kind of major overhaul for the game regarding its scaling and the like, maybe better player models too etc. instead we get a half-baked spellcrafting system for a few skill lines, not even classes yet. Meh.

This feels especially *** for new players, you get the insanely easy overland, then the ridiculously easy dungeons and then you drop this kind of player in a DLC vet dungeon, then veteran players proceed to complain, kick the player and/or exit because they don't like being grouped up with their likes. It has happened far too many times and you guys are nurturing this kind of design. @ZOS_Kevin Please reconsider your stance on this, it IS a big deal. At the very least we need options and a ring that limits our power won't cut it, I keep seeing this suggestion and honestly -- it's bad.

disky · March 4

Shagreth wrote: »

I actually went to some of my old mmorpg's recently, gave them a try again and I have to say: How the hell did they allow the powercreep in ESO to become so massive? It's worse than neglect, this is almost criminal to not to care for your own game to this degree, and then also go ahead and claim "well, can't be helped, seems like the majority of our playerbase enjoys it that way". It's as if the majority of the playerbase are handicapped. I refuse to believe that, it's pure neglect, this is not by choice, because this kind of design philosophy for the majority of the content shouldn't be allowed, I refuse to believe that all of the devs are fine with the state of the game.

ZOS says "Play Your Way" and I agree with that. If there are players who simply want to exist in the world and not be bothered with encounters, that's fine - as long as they also provide players with an option to increase the difficulty. It's not impossible to do both, and if they're neglecting those of us who want a challenge then "Play Your Way" just isn't as true as it could be.

People stop playing the game because of this. I've seen it personally, and I know others have, including content creators who have made videos about the subject like OldSaltySean.

Anumaril · March 4

disky wrote: »

Snip.

I honestly fully agree with you. I've read through this thread (and posted in it) before, but I think my latest post has more to do with disillusionment over ZOS' lack of attention regarding overland content: it just doesn't seem like there's much hope of them doing anything about this in the near future.

And from what I've read in this thread, even suggestions like an optional toggle have people who fervently oppose it (for no discernible good reason). Such an option would only affect the player who enables it, taking advantage of the scaling present since One Tamriel introduced it, and wouldn't involve sharding (thus splitting the playerbase). It's literally the perfect solution. Yet even that draws intense criticism.

So I think my prior post is me thinking of more simple solutions that require little to no effort on part of ZOS, as hopefully those would be more likely to be implemented. But yeah those would not even be close to ideal. I have and always will advocate for an optional toggle that scales the player, full stop.

Shagreth · March 4

Anumaril wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Snip.

And from what I've read in this thread, even suggestions like an optional toggle have people who fervently oppose it (for no discernible good reason). Such an option would only affect the player who enables it, taking advantage of the scaling present since One Tamriel introduced it, and wouldn't involve sharding (thus splitting the playerbase). It's literally the perfect solution. Yet even that draws intense criticism.

I have been around for a while, been part of most MMORPG communities, also some that have died (i.e. Wildstar) and I can tell you with 100% confidence that people around here don't like change, they don't like it to the point where the developers themselves have to think twice before they attempt to change something, it's depressing, because this is going to be the downfall of ESO, it is cursed to gradually shrink, never to truly evolve and attract the necessary new blood (and keep it too) to sustain it. I think that may serve the developers too, then they can call it quits and move on to new things, hence why we don't really see much change, they can't even invest properly for new server parts, instead they got to retrofit old ones. Look at WoW for example, new expansion means a bunch of stuff reworked, new and exciting abilities to learn and the list goes on. I dislike how radical the WoW devs are, I wouldn't want ESO to be that extreme with change, but at the same time -- ESO has become a fetid swamp. The developers can blame ram limitations due to old-gen consoles all they want, I don't buy it anymore, it's time for drastic changes or the game is done, no hyperbole. I was so disappointed to see Gold Road and what it brings, it's the 10th anniversary FFS, do something MAJOR! I almost feel bribed by those free crates.

Anyway, some exaggerations in there, it's not that horrible, ESO is still a very special game and I guess that's why its future worries me under the current leadership.

barney2525 · March 6

Hanoan wrote: »

barney2525 wrote: »

Players simply race past everything going from point A to point B. It happens All the time currently and no amount of changing things around will change it.

That is why people want harder overland; Current overland is kind of boring running simulator.

But no worries, it will stay the same boring running simulator - developers do not give a heck about this thread it seems.

completely disagree
No One is Looking for Harder Overland - which counts for Nothing - just for the sake of more combat.
Players want to complete whatever current job they are involved in and want to get from point A to point B as fast as possible.
That is ALL they want to do, because completing the job is the Only thing that Gains them any Benefits.

The one aspect that you keep leaving out of this discussion is a Real Reason to make it " harder ". What is the Big Benefit to the Player if they stop and fight the mobs? What does the player gain from fighting random mobs?
Answer - Nothing.
That's Why they Run Past them.
You say what You personally want... and you want Your personal viewpoint to be Forced on all Players,,, But you never offer Any good incentive for them implementing it.