Overland Content Feedback Thread

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

. I'd like to see resources put toward other things that would be much more beneficial to all the playerbase, than something that few would use and would have limited functionality.

So, does this mean you no longer support toggles, difficulty banners, etc? Because, in the past, you've expressed support for those. But now, it seems, that you don't think anything should happen to help players, optional or not.

I get frustrated hearing how "mind-numbingly boring" the game that I love is. Overland is not boring. Some players may be bored with it, but overland itself is not boring. Many of us find it fun and engaging just as it is.

By this metric, overland is not fun and engaging either. It is just a thing that exists.

TaSheen

Good question....

spartaxoxo

Credible_Joe wrote: »

The only step I can think of to address these concerns without crossing boundaries set by those opposed is to allow players to opt in to solo / group instance delve, public dungeon, and interior quest locales where we could apply a veteran difficulty. Similar to how the Five Companion quests were instanced in the base game, as well as the climax dungeon & boss fight for most chapter conclusions.

Randos hardly ever interact with each other in these areas anyway, and it's where most of the substance of side quests and story lines take place. Personally, one of the most frustrating things I experience is questing in one of these interiors (I handicap myself with no armor and LV1 weapons), and then watching as someone facerolls the whole encounter. I then either have to wait for the adversity to respawn, or just bypass the rest of it without any resistance. Bad time both ways.

Instances by design split people up. But I think if it was only the main story quests that were instanced that would be acceptable. The side quests could remain as is so we could still get that interaction of running into others. I think delves and especially public dungeons should remain the same. The doors for those quests could also remain a requirement to enter open world for the most part, unless it makes more narrative sense for the NPC to teleport you directly somewhere. This is how some main quests more or less already work.

I get that it's not great when you're trying to avoid others. But, a new person that's trying to see if others are around, for example, needs to see people milling around doing stuff. Delves are daily content and public dungeons specifically exist to have people be able to solo in a group, if that makes sense.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

. I'd like to see resources put toward other things that would be much more beneficial to all the playerbase, than something that few would use and would have limited functionality.

So, does this mean you no longer support toggles, difficulty banners, etc? Because, in the past, you've expressed support for those. But now, it seems, that you don't think anything should happen to help players, optional or not.

I still support those because they don't affect overland at all. They only affect the player using them.

I don't think that a lot of players would use these things but I feel this wouldn't take even a fraction of the resources needed to make an optional veteran overland.

I just get frustrated by the push for separate veteran overland content and hearing how boring the game I enjoy is, and feel the need to voice my concerns.

Credible_Joe

SilverBride wrote: »

I get frustrated hearing how "mind-numbingly boring" the game that I love is. Overland is not boring. Some players may be bored with it, but overland itself is not boring. Many of us find it fun and engaging just as it is.

Silver, people voicing their negative feedback on something you enjoy is not an attack. You say overland isn't boring, I say it is.

Regardless of our different opinions, ultimately what you want is to force players into your space that don't want to be there or play with you. That's a bad experience for both you and the player that doesn't want to be there.

It's an MMO, players have to share space on a foundational level. But along with that is a foundational issue: Content congestion. If content is going to be easy, it only takes one player to go through all if it, forcing others to either wait or skip the content. If it's going to be hard, multiple players need to distribute the challenge. But then casual players have to rely on others to adventure.

What I want is nothing more or less than a solution to both problems. If you're only feedback is to insist that there is no problem and that you feel attacked for saying there is, then nothing gets solved, and you're the only one that's satisfied with the outcome at the expense of everyone else.

SilverBride

Credible_Joe wrote: »

Silver, people voicing their negative feedback on something you enjoy is not an attack. You say overland isn't boring, I say it is.

Regardless of our different opinions, ultimately what you want is to force players into your space that don't want to be there or play with you. That's a bad experience for both you and the player that doesn't want to be there.

I am not trying to force anyone into doing anything they don't want. Players choose what content they want to participate in or not.

Overland has been this way for 8 years and very successfully. There is no need to change that and risk losing a lot of players, like before One Tamriel.

As I told @spartaxoxo, I still support toggles, and difficulty banners, etc. because they only affect the player using them and do not alter overland at all. I would never use these myself but would like to see something that would make more players enjoy the content more. Just not at the expense of overland.

Credible_Joe

SilverBride wrote: »

I am not trying to force anyone into doing anything they don't want. Players choose what content they want to participate in or not.

Overland has been this way for 8 years and very successfully. There is no need to change that and risk losing a lot of players, like before One Tamriel.

As I told @spartaxoxo, I still support toggles, and difficulty banners, etc. because they only affect the player using them and do not alter overland at all. I would never use these myself but would like to see something that would make more players enjoy the content more. Just not at the expense of overland.

Doesn't solve the issue of content congestion. Sounds good on the surface, but it has the same issue as there is presently with self-handicap: If literally anyone else shows up, you either have to skip the content you're engaging with, or wait for it to respawn.

Solo / group instancing interiors would unacceptably split population if it applied to everyone. But as an option, I'm very confident the only people that would engage with it are the ones that want a more challenging narrative. With no increased reward or incentive, it would be as you say: not a lot of players would use it.

You would only be in the cave with people that want to be there with you, absent of any grievance or frustration whether you perceive it or not. I strongly believe this is a solution that requires little adjustment or development, (though only devs could attest to that), and that you wouldn't even notice a population dip from randos. And it wouldn't touch exteriors or player hubs, maintaining the exact same level of engagement.

Going to reiterate once more that this is opt in, and comes with zero risk of frustrating and driving away players that don't want to engage with it.

SilverBride

Other players killing the mob we want and having to wait for it to respawn is an MMO problem that has existed as long as MMOs have. Every delve and public dungeons etc., should not be turned into private instanced content to get away from running into others when playing... which has nothing to do with overland difficulty anyway.

Credible_Joe

It has everything to do with overland difficulty; delves, public dungeons, and quest locale interiors are part of overland.

And most of all, the fact that it's always been a problem is no excuse not to solve it.

SilverBride

I don't find it a major problem. I expect to run into other players in an MMO.

I think we should just agree to disagree at this point.

spartaxoxo

Credible_Joe wrote: »

It has everything to do with overland difficulty; delves, public dungeons, and quest locale interiors are part of overland.

And most of all, the fact that it's always been a problem is no excuse not to solve it.

Running into other players is one of the main selling points of an MMO, as they aren't single player games. One of the first things many players check when joining an MMO is to see if the game is dead or not. One of the very first impressions on that is how many people they run into. It's not a single player game. There's an expectation that an MMO will offer a massive multiplayer experience.

I'd have no problem with the main story quests being instanced, but delves, side quests, public dungeons, bosses, etc should remain open world content. Open world is meaningless if none of the content is open world.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

. I'd like to see resources put toward other things that would be much more beneficial to all the playerbase, than something that few would use and would have limited functionality.

So, does this mean you no longer support toggles, difficulty banners, etc? Because, in the past, you've expressed support for those. But now, it seems, that you don't think anything should happen to help players, optional or not.

I still support those because they don't affect overland at all. They only affect the player using them.

I don't think that a lot of players would use these things but I feel this wouldn't take even a fraction of the resources needed to make an optional veteran overland.

I just get frustrated by the push for separate veteran overland content and hearing how boring the game I enjoy is, and feel the need to voice my concerns.

Okay, but you're splitting hairs there a bit in a way that makes it more difficult to understand what you mean when you say you oppose even optional difficulty solutions. I get what you mean, now. The overland experience would still be altered, just not the physical overland itself. It makes sense. You want a solution that is player focused rather map focused. But it might be helpful to clarify what you would support instead of just "not even optional!" as I was quite surprised! Anyway, glad we cleared that up. I'm glad to see you still support sliders and the like.

Credible_Joe

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't find it a major problem. I expect to run into other players in an MMO.

I think we should just agree to disagree at this point.

That's an easy agreement for you to make when I'm the one bending over backwards to compromise, trying my absolute hardest to make sure your play experience gets to stay exactly the same, and all you have to do to win in your mind is nothing.

I really would prefer your worst case scenario: A highly engaging narrative challenge that makes you work for any progress or reward on all levels, for everyone. I enjoy games like Elden Ring and Baldur's Gate, and every Bethesda release I mod my experience to be deadly and punishing. I spend most of my time in ESO in PvP, fighting world bosses, and otherwise engaging with all of the challenging content available. What I miss out on is your experience: Enjoying the chapter storylines. Because it's boring and unengaging, regardless of how good the narrative might be. I wish I could just turn the novelty back on in my mind, but I can't. It just isn't fun for me if there's no threat of failure.

Like I said earlier, the whole time I've approached this has been with your consideration in mind. I've even argued your points in other spaces where this gets brought up, informing others what boundaries won't be crossed if there's ever any kind of resolution. But with zero reciprocation in that regard, there really isn't a point. You'll continue to pad the discussion with uncompromising dissent regardless, presumably until the game sunsets.

Don't know why I bothered in the first place.

spartaxoxo

Credible_Joe wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't find it a major problem. I expect to run into other players in an MMO.

I think we should just agree to disagree at this point.

That's an easy agreement for you to make when I'm the one bending over backwards to compromise, trying my absolute hardest to make sure your play experience gets to stay exactly the same, and all you have to do to win in your mind is nothing.

I really would prefer your worst case scenario: A highly engaging narrative challenge that makes you work for any progress or reward on all levels, for everyone. I enjoy games like Elden Ring and Baldur's Gate, and every Bethesda release I mod my experience to be deadly and punishing. I spend most of my time in ESO in PvP, fighting world bosses, and otherwise engaging with all of the challenging content available. What I miss out on is your experience: Enjoying the chapter storylines. Because it's boring and unengaging, regardless of how good the narrative might be. I wish I could just turn the novelty back on in my mind, but I can't. It just isn't fun for me if there's no threat of failure.

Like I said earlier, the whole time I've approached this has been with your consideration in mind. I've even argued your points in other spaces where this gets brought up, informing others what boundaries won't be crossed if there's ever any kind of resolution. But with zero reciprocation in that regard, there really isn't a point. You'll continue to pad the discussion with uncompromising dissent regardless, presumably until the game sunsets.

Don't know why I bothered in the first place.

I for one appreciated that you came up with a new idea that hasn't been brought up a thousand times before. It was very refreshing seeing an idea that took concerns into account. I don't full support the idea, but I do partial support it. I like it is a solution better than having two entirely different versions of the map, certainly.

edit
@Credible_Joe

Also, just to double check I understand it correctly. You mean like walking around the open world and then you find a cave and waltz inside like old single player games, but the eso mmo version, yes?

Credible_Joe

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

It has everything to do with overland difficulty; delves, public dungeons, and quest locale interiors are part of overland.

And most of all, the fact that it's always been a problem is no excuse not to solve it.

I'd have no problem with the main story quests being instanced, but delves, side quests, public dungeons, bosses, etc should remain open world content. Open world is meaningless if none of the content is open world.

How many people do you think would opt into instanced veteran delves, PDs, and Quest locales to the point where the game would appear to be dead?

Again, no incentive for this. Pure narrative challenge. Everyone else would be instanced together like they are now.

Also, to clarify, this would ONLY apply to those interiors. Not sure where you got bosses from, unless you just mean bosses related to those areas I've described. World bosses would stay the same.

spartaxoxo

Credible_Joe wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

It has everything to do with overland difficulty; delves, public dungeons, and quest locale interiors are part of overland.

And most of all, the fact that it's always been a problem is no excuse not to solve it.

I'd have no problem with the main story quests being instanced, but delves, side quests, public dungeons, bosses, etc should remain open world content. Open world is meaningless if none of the content is open world.

How many people do you think would opt into instanced veteran delves, PDs, and Quest locales to the point where the game would appear to be dead?

Again, no incentive for this. Pure narrative challenge. Everyone else would be instanced together like they are now.

A lot of people, honestly. You wouldn't have to worry about boss respawns during events, for example.

Credible_Joe

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

It has everything to do with overland difficulty; delves, public dungeons, and quest locale interiors are part of overland.

And most of all, the fact that it's always been a problem is no excuse not to solve it.

I'd have no problem with the main story quests being instanced, but delves, side quests, public dungeons, bosses, etc should remain open world content. Open world is meaningless if none of the content is open world.

How many people do you think would opt into instanced veteran delves, PDs, and Quest locales to the point where the game would appear to be dead?

Again, no incentive for this. Pure narrative challenge. Everyone else would be instanced together like they are now.

A lot of people, honestly. You wouldn't have to worry about boss respawns during events, for example.

You would if you also limited respawns for people that opt into this. Kind of like a single player game now-- clear a location, it stays cleared for a significant amount of time.

That was a good point.

spartaxoxo

Credible_Joe wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

It has everything to do with overland difficulty; delves, public dungeons, and quest locale interiors are part of overland.

And most of all, the fact that it's always been a problem is no excuse not to solve it.

I'd have no problem with the main story quests being instanced, but delves, side quests, public dungeons, bosses, etc should remain open world content. Open world is meaningless if none of the content is open world.

How many people do you think would opt into instanced veteran delves, PDs, and Quest locales to the point where the game would appear to be dead?

Again, no incentive for this. Pure narrative challenge. Everyone else would be instanced together like they are now.

A lot of people, honestly. You wouldn't have to worry about boss respawns during events, for example.

You would if you also limited respawns for people that opt into this. Kind of like a single player game now-- clear a location, it stays cleared for a significant amount of time.

That was a good point.

If the respawns were limited enough that most lead/drop farming, dailies, etc would still have to be done in the main overland version, then that I could get behind. A one-time thing (edit: or whatever low number works) just to get to experience the narrative, similar to the concept of a story dungeon.

disky

Muizer wrote: »

It's just important to be aware there is a 'design philosophy' behind the way things are. And that's the concept of 'mastery'. It is baked in at a very fundamental level that the player journey is to progress from easy content to harder content that needs to be 'mastered'. Overland is the bottom rung of the ladder. An optional across-the-board increase in difficulty of overland doesn't really fit the pattern. So, it will take some convincing indeed that this is the right thing to do. And then I believe Rich mentioned that designing a reward system for tiered overland isn't straightforward at all. I suppose it all comes down to how you can isolate multiple different difficulty and reward levels for individual players taking part in one encounter. It is on the whole much more likely that harder difficulty content will be inserted into overland which players can choose to engage with or not.

If that's the philosophy, then it's flawed. Not everyone wants to raid, not everyone wants to run dungeons. It's a fundamentally different kind of experience that I would argue most fans of the Elder Scrolls series aren't looking for. I love TES for the lore, adventure and stories, not repeating the same maps over and over again, and I am capable of playing the overland game at a higher difficulty level than ZOS provides.

Given that other content has difficulty options (with an even greater range incoming thanks to the planned dungeon story mode) I see no reason why overland should be neglected. It's not an insurmountable problem.

Credible_Joe

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If the respawns were limited enough that most lead/drop farming, dailies, etc would still have to be done in the main overland version, then that I could get behind. A one-time thing (edit: or whatever low number works) just to get to experience the narrative, similar to the concept of a story dungeon.

Yes, exactly.

Speaking of story dungeons, that's something else I lobby for when I get the chance. Strongly against hard group checks in normal dungeons. Really takes the wind out of my sails.

TaSheen

disky wrote: »

Given that other content has difficulty options (with an even greater range incoming thanks to the planned dungeon story mode) I see no reason why overland should be neglected. It's not an insurmountable problem.

When was "planned dungeon story mode" announced? Last I heard, they said they knew people wanted it but it was not on radar any time soon (paraphrased, don't remember the exact wording).

spartaxoxo

Credible_Joe wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If the respawns were limited enough that most lead/drop farming, dailies, etc would still have to be done in the main overland version, then that I could get behind. A one-time thing (edit: or whatever low number works) just to get to experience the narrative, similar to the concept of a story dungeon.

Yes, exactly.

Speaking of story dungeons, that's something else I lobby for when I get the chance. Strongly against hard group checks in normal dungeons. Really takes the wind out of my sails.

I could get behind something like that.

For me, with this idea, I could agree if it were...

Dailies, side-quests, and World bosses remain the same (regular overland needs meaningful opportunities to interact with others)

Delves, Public Dungeons, and Main Story quests are given restricted instances that you must enter through the regular overland. These wouldn't have leads, those public dungeon achievement drops e.g. big eared ginger kitten pieces and would be restricted in the number of times you can enter. This would be done to protect daily quest/event/etc. farming while still allowing for people to experience the narrative of them at their own pace, with an increased challenge.

edit: When I say side quests, I mean the smaller ones. Not the ones that might as well be their own main quest like the Veya or Sun-in-Shadow one.

disky

SilverBride wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

Bastion Nymic didn't land very well, if their intent was to address concerns in this thread. For one thing, the main grievance is with the trivial difficulty of the chapter story and side quest content, as well as delves and quest locales.

Overland quests need to remain easily completable by all players.

I don't think most of the people in this thread are asking for the game to be changed for everyone. And If I remember correctly, the last time you were here we made that quite clear. It was even demonstrated with video how trivial overland enemies were by standing still and allowing them to attack while the player's health regen mitigated the damage.

SilverBride wrote: »

There definitely is a lot of challenging content. In fact every single activity that includes combat is challenging except overland. All of it. In fact, even overland has become way more challenging than it was in the base game zones with much more difficult World Bosses and Dolmens being replaced with Geysers and Harrowstorms and Vents.

But overland is the main reason a lot of us are here. TES was never about the kind of content that ESO provides for high-level play. It's about adventure and exploration, story and lore. You get none of these by rushing through a dungeon with a group as fast as you possibly can. Not saying this kind of thing isn't something people want, just that we can have both without harming the overland experience for anyone who likes the game as it is now.

Credible_Joe

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I could get behind something like that.

For me, with this idea, I could agree if it were...

Dailies, side-quests, and World bosses remain the same (regular overland needs meaningful opportunities to interact with others)

Delves, Public Dungeons, and Main Story quests are given restricted instances that you must enter through the regular overland. These wouldn't have leads, those public dungeon achievement drops e.g. big eared ginger kitten pieces and would be restricted in the number of times you can enter. This would be done to protect daily quest/event/etc. farming while still allowing for people to experience the narrative of them at their own pace, with an increased challenge.

edit: When I say side quests, I mean the smaller ones. Not the ones that might as well be their own main quest like the Sun-in-Shadow one.

Very much down with all of that. I'm here for the vibes, never did much grinding.

And when you mention Sun-in-Shadow, that's what I mean by questing locale interiors. Those adventure spots with unique quest markers, but aren't delves or public dungeons.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Okay, but you're splitting hairs there a bit in a way that makes it more difficult to understand what you mean when you say you oppose even optional difficulty solutions. I get what you mean, now. The overland experience would still be altered, just not the physical overland itself. It makes sense. You want a solution that is player focused rather map focused. But it might be helpful to clarify what you would support instead of just "not even optional!" as I was quite surprised! Anyway, glad we cleared that up. I'm glad to see you still support sliders and the like.

Sorry for the confusion! I only mean making a separate veteran overland, or making the delves private instances, things like that that do alter overland itself... making them optional doesn't change the fact that overland is still being altered.

spartaxoxo

Credible_Joe wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I could get behind something like that.

For me, with this idea, I could agree if it were...

Dailies, side-quests, and World bosses remain the same (regular overland needs meaningful opportunities to interact with others)

Delves, Public Dungeons, and Main Story quests are given restricted instances that you must enter through the regular overland. These wouldn't have leads, those public dungeon achievement drops e.g. big eared ginger kitten pieces and would be restricted in the number of times you can enter. This would be done to protect daily quest/event/etc. farming while still allowing for people to experience the narrative of them at their own pace, with an increased challenge.

edit: When I say side quests, I mean the smaller ones. Not the ones that might as well be their own main quest like the Sun-in-Shadow one.

Very much down with all of that. I'm here for the vibes, never did much grinding.

And when you mention Sun-in-Shadow, that's what I mean by questing locale interiors. Those adventure spots with unique quest markers, but aren't delves or public dungeons.

There's some of those quests that are really minor, narratively. And if you do go inside an interior, there's not much to it. And then there's ones that are long/important to showing aspects of the lore outside of the main quest e.g. a particular race's culture or setting up a future antagonist/ally. I think the major ones should also have an opt-in instanced. The more minor ones, well there needs to be reasons to spread out on the map, both for serve the exploration feeling and to find others. Those seem fitting to remain the same.

disky

TaSheen wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Given that other content has difficulty options (with an even greater range incoming thanks to the planned dungeon story mode) I see no reason why overland should be neglected. It's not an insurmountable problem.

When was "planned dungeon story mode" announced? Last I heard, they said they knew people wanted it but it was not on radar any time soon (paraphrased, don't remember the exact wording).

I recall hearing about it coming during the Gold Road cycle but I'm not seeing anything now. It might be apocryphal or I might be misremembering.

spartaxoxo

disky wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Given that other content has difficulty options (with an even greater range incoming thanks to the planned dungeon story mode) I see no reason why overland should be neglected. It's not an insurmountable problem.

When was "planned dungeon story mode" announced? Last I heard, they said they knew people wanted it but it was not on radar any time soon (paraphrased, don't remember the exact wording).

I recall hearing about it coming during the Gold Road cycle but I'm not seeing anything now. It might be apocryphal or I might be misremembering.

They said it was on their future plans list but would not be soon, so you're both right.

colossalvoids

SilverBride wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

I'm begging you Silver, just acknowledge that this is a thing people want, and let them put their notes in the box without immediate discouragement. I'm not asking you to abandon your position or opinion, just let discourse move forward with any feedback other than insisting the solution goes in the trash.

I get frustrated hearing how "mind-numbingly boring" the game that I love is. Overland is not boring. Some players may be bored with it, but overland itself is not boring. Many of us find it fun and engaging just as it is.

And I'm frustrated when people claim the game is fine for everyone, whilst a lot of players doesn't feel that way. For us it IS boring and it's not fun when you're in overland, so we want something to be done for our enjoyment also without taking anything significant away from ones who enjoy how things currently are.

You already have what you like, now others also want something for them, that's pretty simple.

Muizer

casparian wrote: »

If ZOS wants to keep their mastery progression design philosophy, they need to make their content fit that progression. Right now it doesn't. Presumably this is because they want the mastery progression journey to be able to begin in any zone instead of having a locked-in line of quest progression, and that makes sense to me. But then they need to figure out what players are supposed to do with the enormous amount of easy content tuned for the beginning of their journey that's still left over once players have left the beginning stages of progression.

Agreed. With One Tamriel ZOS actually went against their own principle, and the result is a game where 90% of the content is at the bottom rung of the ladder. And they have never figured out a way to address that.