Overland Content Feedback Thread

Shagreth

I am done with this thread, [snip]. I do resepct you, but not your opinions, I hope that's understandable. I can't think why you would defend what is obviously highly flawed and [snip] design. Anyway, we seem to have very different ideas of what games should offer/be. This forever tutorial, boring & unengaging content must go, and sadly it's the majority of the game, the story makes me want to come back, but that hasn't been great lately either. Perhaps it's time for a break, again. Gold Road will tell.

[edited for bashing]

SilverBride

disky wrote: »

Give any new player the ability to play the game at whatever level they choose and don't ruin it for those who want a challenge by never letting them experience anything more challenging than a tutorial-level experience.

Every single thing in this game that has any combat at all is challenging content EXCEPT overland. EVERYTHING. Players that want a challenge have the entire rest of the game to experience it.

spartaxoxo

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Overland is the tutorial content. It's for new players and casual players. It shouldn't require builds and it should cater to power fantasies. Normal mode group content is what is supposed to prepare people for vet group content, not overland. Overland is for preparing people for normal mode and give them a story experience.

I vehemently disagree with this line of thinking. Overland is the closest thing to the actual TES experience in ESO, and it's what I think most people expect to do when they start playing this game, especially if they've played another TES game. If overland is the tutorial, then ZOS is making a new, full-game-length tutorial every single year, and if that's what they intend to do then it's wrongheaded behavior.

It MAY be a tutorial-level experience right now, but it shouldn't have to be.

They have literally stated they want each chapter to be something a brand new player can jump into right away. Story content is designed for a new or casual experience. It's nothing wrong headed about that either. Every expansion needs something to attract new people and the main story is a natural point. Brand new players need something to jump into and it makes zero sense to toss them into group content first. Questing is the natural starting point of a MMO.

The wrong thing is them not giving us things like difficulty sliders so the content can remain engaging for vet players.

That's fine. Give any new player the ability to play the game at whatever level they choose and don't ruin it for those who want a challenge by never letting them experience anything more challenging than a tutorial-level experience.

Which is why I stated that the problem is that they don't have options. The other user appeared to argue that they should just increase the difficulty for everyone and the casuals and new players could just adapt. That's why I pointed out it is serving as a tutorial. At which point, you stated you vehemently disagree it should be used for the tutorial. And here we are.

I don't have a problem with difficulty options. I do have a problem with mandatory difficulty increase.

disky

SilverBride wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Give any new player the ability to play the game at whatever level they choose and don't ruin it for those who want a challenge by never letting them experience anything more challenging than a tutorial-level experience.

Every single thing in this game that has any combat at all is challenging content EXCEPT overland. EVERYTHING. Players that want a challenge have the entire rest of the game to experience it.

I don't understand why there has to be a binary solution. You're making it sound like I'm spoiled, because I already have the thing I should want. I don't want that. I don't want to run dungeons and trials over and over, as fast as possible, never taking time to experience a decent story. That's not what TES has ever been about, and we have something akin to the other TES games in ESO but it's just fundamentally unsatisfying for me. I love TES as much as you, I have no doubt about that. I just want the game to feel right for me and it could with a bit of effort. It wouldn't have to harm your experience, either.

So what's the problem? Why do people feel the need to gate the thing I want off and tell me that I'm wrong for wanting it? I'm not trying to take anything away from you. I want us both to enjoy the same thing, and that's not out of realm of possibility.

disky

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Which is why I stated that the problem is that they don't have options. The other user appeared to argue that they should just increase the difficulty for everyone and the casuals and new players could just adapt. That's why I pointed out it is serving as a tutorial. At which point, you stated you vehemently disagree it should be used for the tutorial. And here we are.

I don't have a problem with difficulty options. I do have a problem with mandatory difficulty increase.

But the point holds that "overland is tutorial" is a bad take, right? Do we agree?

spartaxoxo

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Which is why I stated that the problem is that they don't have options. The other user appeared to argue that they should just increase the difficulty for everyone and the casuals and new players could just adapt. That's why I pointed out it is serving as a tutorial. At which point, you stated you vehemently disagree it should be used for the tutorial. And here we are.

I don't have a problem with difficulty options. I do have a problem with mandatory difficulty increase.

But the point holds that "overland is tutorial" is a bad take, right? Do we agree?

No. It doesn't hold imo. As I stated, the developers literally stated that they want new players to be able to use overland immediately. It is the very first content new players play. And it is the most logical content to be the first thing they play.

disky

spartaxoxo wrote: »

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Which is why I stated that the problem is that they don't have options. The other user appeared to argue that they should just increase the difficulty for everyone and the casuals and new players could just adapt. That's why I pointed out it is serving as a tutorial. At which point, you stated you vehemently disagree it should be used for the tutorial. And here we are.

I don't have a problem with difficulty options. I do have a problem with mandatory difficulty increase.

But the point holds that "overland is tutorial" is a bad take, right? Do we agree?

No. It doesn't hold imo. As I stated, the developers literally stated that they want new players to be able to use overland immediately. It is the very first content new players play. And it is the most logical content to be the first thing they play.

Technically, the very first content that a new player experiences, should they choose to do it, is the actual tutorial built into the game. Overland CAN be played at a tutorial level as it is now, but there's no reason it should HAVE to be played that way, and the fact that we think of it as such and just accept that the vast majority of the game's content is supposed to be that way is kind of wild. It speaks to how we've been trained.

It's not a tutorial. You don't play a tutorial for 20 hours or more per zone.

SilverBride

disky wrote: »

Why do people feel the need to gate the thing I want off and tell me that I'm wrong for wanting it? I'm not trying to take anything away from you. I want us both to enjoy the same thing, and that's not out of realm of possibility.

I never said anyone was wrong for what they want and what they enjoy. But I do not agree with the ONLY casual content we have being altered when there are multiple options already for challenges.

"Similarly, open-world content is balanced for casual play; ZOS is not going to make the open-world game or story content too hard because they don’t want people to quit. People who want challenge are funneled into dungeons."

https://massivelyop.com/2024/01/18/elder-scrolls-onlines-gold-road-chapter-takes-players-back-to-oblivions-best-city-on-june-3/

spartaxoxo

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Which is why I stated that the problem is that they don't have options. The other user appeared to argue that they should just increase the difficulty for everyone and the casuals and new players could just adapt. That's why I pointed out it is serving as a tutorial. At which point, you stated you vehemently disagree it should be used for the tutorial. And here we are.

I don't have a problem with difficulty options. I do have a problem with mandatory difficulty increase.

But the point holds that "overland is tutorial" is a bad take, right? Do we agree?

No. It doesn't hold imo. As I stated, the developers literally stated that they want new players to be able to use overland immediately. It is the very first content new players play. And it is the most logical content to be the first thing they play.

Technically, the very first content that a new player experiences, should they choose to do it, is the actual tutorial built into the game. Overland CAN be played at a tutorial level as it is now, but there's no reason it should HAVE to be played that way, and the fact that we think of it as such and just accept that the vast majority of the game's content is supposed to be that way is kind of wild. It speaks to how we've been trained.

It's not a tutorial. You don't play a tutorial for 20 hours or more per zone.

Every zone is designed to be tutorial level because they allow new players to start at any zone they want. This is a good thing and absolutely the way it should be. If someone sees an ad for Gold Road and wants to play it, they shouldn't need to wade through 10 years of gameplay first. They should be able to jump right in immediately and explore the Gold Road.

Forcing everyone to change their playstyle because a minority of people wouldn't be happy with increased difficulty unless everyone else was also forced to play that way is not a good idea.

I'll never agree that forced difficulty is a good thing or to the arbitrary line of what amount of hours they are allowed to make tutorial level content.

disky

SilverBride wrote: »

I never said anyone was wrong for what they want and what they enjoy. But I do not agree with the ONLY casual content we have being altered when there are multiple options already for challenges.

I think you're misunderstanding the motivation behind the desire for challenge in overland. It's not simply "I want more challenge because the challenge I have isn't enough", it's "I want this specific thing to be challenging because it's the content I love to do but it doesn't feel right". I don't care about dungeons or trials. They're a means to an end for me. If I can play them in a satisfying way that allows me to experience their story then they're fine, but more often than not they're a bottle episode with no ties to the overarching events of the game, and even more often you don't get to really take the time to savor them because you're rushing through as fast as the fastest player in your group. That is equally unsatisfying.

I'm here because I want what you want, slightly different.

disky

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Forcing everyone to change their playstyle because a minority of people wouldn't be happy with increased difficulty unless everyone else was also forced to play that way is not a good idea.

I'll never agree that forced difficulty is a good thing or to the arbitrary line of what amount of hours they are allowed to make tutorial level content.

I get that you're still responding to the original comment here, but the point is that no, the zone stories are not tutorials, because no tutorial has ever, ever been 20 hours or more per zone. I disagree with that guy too for what it's worth, but the overland game is just easy, it's not a tutorial. If ZOS intends the bulk of their game to be a tutorial for other content then they're misunderstanding the motivations of a lot of the players who like the overland content, I think.

I haven't measured the files but I'd bet that overland is the bulk of the space on your hard drive, not dungeons or trials. It's the main portion of the game. If the main portion of the game is a tutorial then something is wrong.

SilverBride

disky wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I never said anyone was wrong for what they want and what they enjoy. But I do not agree with the ONLY casual content we have being altered when there are multiple options already for challenges.

I think you're misunderstanding the motivation behind the desire for challenge in overland. It's not simply "I want more challenge because the challenge I have isn't enough", it's "I want this specific thing to be challenging because it's the content I love to do but it doesn't feel right". I don't care about dungeons or trials. They're a means to an end for me. If I can play them in a satisfying way that allows me to experience their story then they're fine, but more often than not they're a bottle episode with no ties to the overarching events of the game, and even more often you don't get to really take the time to savor them because you're rushing through as fast as the fastest player in your group. That is equally unsatisfying.

I'm here because I want what you want, slightly different.

I enjoy challenging content, too, and I run Dungeons and Trials and the Infinte Archive when I am in the mood for that, so I do understand how a challenge can be fun. And I am not unsympathetic, which is why I support challenge banners for bosses, debuffs, and difficulty sliders. But it doesn't change the fact that open-world content is balanced for casual play and I am very grateful for ZoS's stance on that.

spartaxoxo

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Forcing everyone to change their playstyle because a minority of people wouldn't be happy with increased difficulty unless everyone else was also forced to play that way is not a good idea.

I'll never agree that forced difficulty is a good thing or to the arbitrary line of what amount of hours they are allowed to make tutorial level content.

I get that you're still responding to the original comment here, but the point is that no, the zone stories are not tutorials, because no tutorial has ever, ever been 20 hours or more per zone. I disagree with that guy too for what it's worth, but the overland game is just easy, it's not a tutorial. If ZOS intends the bulk of their game to be a tutorial for other content then they're misunderstanding the motivations of a lot of the players who like the overland content, I think.

I haven't measured the files but I'd bet that overland is the bulk of the space on your hard drive, not dungeons or trials. It's the main portion of the game. If the main portion of the game is a tutorial then something is wrong.

You are hung up on the hours. The tutorial is the first content you get into that lets you understand the basics of the game. Overland is at the same easy level of difficulty everywhere you go because players are allowed to start at every quest. You imposed that limit, it's not one ZOS did. ZOS intends for new players to be able to pick any zone or quest they want and start there. That necessitates making the entire thing a similar level of difficulty. And that's exactly how it is designed.

They didn't make it extremely easy solely to cater to casuals. They also made it extremely easy so that new players can start at whatever quest peaks their interests. If you see an ad that asks you to defend Elsweyr from dragons and that is what makes you want to play the game, then ZOS wants you to be able to immediately go to Elsweyr. Players can start playing the game properly literally anywhere.

disky

SilverBride wrote: »

disky wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I never said anyone was wrong for what they want and what they enjoy. But I do not agree with the ONLY casual content we have being altered when there are multiple options already for challenges.

I think you're misunderstanding the motivation behind the desire for challenge in overland. It's not simply "I want more challenge because the challenge I have isn't enough", it's "I want this specific thing to be challenging because it's the content I love to do but it doesn't feel right". I don't care about dungeons or trials. They're a means to an end for me. If I can play them in a satisfying way that allows me to experience their story then they're fine, but more often than not they're a bottle episode with no ties to the overarching events of the game, and even more often you don't get to really take the time to savor them because you're rushing through as fast as the fastest player in your group. That is equally unsatisfying.

I'm here because I want what you want, slightly different.

I enjoy challenging content, too, and I run Dungeons and Trials and the Infinte Archive when I am in the mood for that, so I do understand how a challenge can be fun. And I am not unsympathetic, which is why I support challenge banners for bosses, debuffs, and difficulty sliders. But it doesn't change the fact that open-world content is balanced for casual play and I am very grateful for ZoS's stance on that.

But we keep going around and around on this. I've said that I'm okay with it being balanced for casual play. I've said multiple times that I want it to work for both of us and I know that it can because it has been proven possible in other venues. I've said that I don't want to take away what you already have, meaning I want the game to maintain its current level of balance by default. So then why are we still arguing about this?

disky

spartaxoxo wrote: »

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Forcing everyone to change their playstyle because a minority of people wouldn't be happy with increased difficulty unless everyone else was also forced to play that way is not a good idea.

I'll never agree that forced difficulty is a good thing or to the arbitrary line of what amount of hours they are allowed to make tutorial level content.

I get that you're still responding to the original comment here, but the point is that no, the zone stories are not tutorials, because no tutorial has ever, ever been 20 hours or more per zone. I disagree with that guy too for what it's worth, but the overland game is just easy, it's not a tutorial. If ZOS intends the bulk of their game to be a tutorial for other content then they're misunderstanding the motivations of a lot of the players who like the overland content, I think.

I haven't measured the files but I'd bet that overland is the bulk of the space on your hard drive, not dungeons or trials. It's the main portion of the game. If the main portion of the game is a tutorial then something is wrong.

You are hung up on the hours. The tutorial is the first content you get into that lets you understand the basics of the game. Overland is at the same easy level of difficulty everywhere you go because players are allowed to start at every quest. You imposed that limit, it's not one ZOS did. ZOS intends for new players to be able to pick any zone or quest they want and start there. That necessitates making the entire thing a similar level of difficulty. And that's exactly how it is designed.

They didn't make it extremely easy solely to cater to casuals. They also made it extremely easy so that new players can start with at whatever quest peaks their interests. If you see an ad that asks you to defend Elsweyr from dragons and you decide that's the first thing you want to do, you can.

When you say tutorial, the content as a whole is placed in that context and players are made to understand it as such, which is detrimental to change. It's like saying "pool is a tutorial for snooker" when it isn't. It's just a different game using similar equipment, and we shouldn't treat it as if it is. Doing so is misinforming the players of both. Overland is not a tutorial, it's just a different game using similar equipment.

spartaxoxo

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Forcing everyone to change their playstyle because a minority of people wouldn't be happy with increased difficulty unless everyone else was also forced to play that way is not a good idea.

I'll never agree that forced difficulty is a good thing or to the arbitrary line of what amount of hours they are allowed to make tutorial level content.

I get that you're still responding to the original comment here, but the point is that no, the zone stories are not tutorials, because no tutorial has ever, ever been 20 hours or more per zone. I disagree with that guy too for what it's worth, but the overland game is just easy, it's not a tutorial. If ZOS intends the bulk of their game to be a tutorial for other content then they're misunderstanding the motivations of a lot of the players who like the overland content, I think.

I haven't measured the files but I'd bet that overland is the bulk of the space on your hard drive, not dungeons or trials. It's the main portion of the game. If the main portion of the game is a tutorial then something is wrong.

You are hung up on the hours. The tutorial is the first content you get into that lets you understand the basics of the game. Overland is at the same easy level of difficulty everywhere you go because players are allowed to start at every quest. You imposed that limit, it's not one ZOS did. ZOS intends for new players to be able to pick any zone or quest they want and start there. That necessitates making the entire thing a similar level of difficulty. And that's exactly how it is designed.

They didn't make it extremely easy solely to cater to casuals. They also made it extremely easy so that new players can start with at whatever quest peaks their interests. If you see an ad that asks you to defend Elsweyr from dragons and you decide that's the first thing you want to do, you can.

When you say tutorial, the content as a whole is placed in that context and players are made to understand it as such, which is detrimental to change. It's like saying "pool is a tutorial for snooker" when it isn't. It's just a different game using similar equipment, and we shouldn't treat it as if it is. Doing so is misinforming the players of both. Overland is not a tutorial, it's just a different game using similar equipment.

Group content isn't an entirely different game. And all players are allowed to pick any zone as their starter zone. It used to be that they had actual starter zones like Stros M'Kai. But they abandoned that because they wanted every zone to be a starter zone so that players had the freedom to start anywhere they wanted.

When asked about the narrative chronological issues that happen by having a level less system wherein every zone is potentially a starter zone, ZOS stated this.

"[What] we're trying to avoid there is the gen one MMO problem. The cool new content launches, and new players have to play through 18 years of old content. We definitely wanted to avoid that. If they're seeing marketing images about dragons, we want them to play Elsweyr," says Firor.

So yes, every zone is designed to be easy enough that they can serve as a starter zone. All of them.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190607232034/https://www.usgamer.net/articles/elder-scrolls-online-developers-elsweyr-player-milestones-and-the-season-of-the-dragon

I don't care if this information is inconvenient to forcing increased difficulty on everyone. I think that's a bad idea for many reasons.

Difficulty options so that the content can remain engaging to established players who want more of a challenge would be nice though.

disky

spartaxoxo wrote: »

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Forcing everyone to change their playstyle because a minority of people wouldn't be happy with increased difficulty unless everyone else was also forced to play that way is not a good idea.

I'll never agree that forced difficulty is a good thing or to the arbitrary line of what amount of hours they are allowed to make tutorial level content.

I get that you're still responding to the original comment here, but the point is that no, the zone stories are not tutorials, because no tutorial has ever, ever been 20 hours or more per zone. I disagree with that guy too for what it's worth, but the overland game is just easy, it's not a tutorial. If ZOS intends the bulk of their game to be a tutorial for other content then they're misunderstanding the motivations of a lot of the players who like the overland content, I think.

I haven't measured the files but I'd bet that overland is the bulk of the space on your hard drive, not dungeons or trials. It's the main portion of the game. If the main portion of the game is a tutorial then something is wrong.

You are hung up on the hours. The tutorial is the first content you get into that lets you understand the basics of the game. Overland is at the same easy level of difficulty everywhere you go because players are allowed to start at every quest. You imposed that limit, it's not one ZOS did. ZOS intends for new players to be able to pick any zone or quest they want and start there. That necessitates making the entire thing a similar level of difficulty. And that's exactly how it is designed.

They didn't make it extremely easy solely to cater to casuals. They also made it extremely easy so that new players can start with at whatever quest peaks their interests. If you see an ad that asks you to defend Elsweyr from dragons and you decide that's the first thing you want to do, you can.

When you say tutorial, the content as a whole is placed in that context and players are made to understand it as such, which is detrimental to change. It's like saying "pool is a tutorial for snooker" when it isn't. It's just a different game using similar equipment, and we shouldn't treat it as if it is. Doing so is misinforming the players of both. Overland is not a tutorial, it's just a different game using similar equipment.

Group content isn't an entirely different game. And all players are allowed to pick any zone as their starter zone. It used to be that they had actual starter zones like Stros M'Kai. But they abandoned that because they wanted every zone to be a starter zone so that players had the freedom to start anywhere they wanted.

When asked about the narrative chronological issues that happen by having a level less system wherein every zone is potentially a starter zone, ZOS stated this.

"[What] we're trying to avoid there is the gen one MMO problem. The cool new content launches, and new players have to play through 18 years of old content. We definitely wanted to avoid that. If they're seeing marketing images about dragons, we want them to play Elsweyr," says Firor.

So yes, every zone is designed to be easy enough that they can serve as a starter zone. All of them.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190607232034/https://www.usgamer.net/articles/elder-scrolls-online-developers-elsweyr-player-milestones-and-the-season-of-the-dragon

I don't care if this information is inconvenient to forcing increased difficulty on everyone. I think that's a bad idea for many reasons.

Difficulty options so that the content can remain engaging to established players who want more of a challenge would be nice though.

That's fine, but the point is that it is not and should not be considered preparation for dungeons and trials. It's been said that because overland is so easy it's actually harming the skill progress of players who could be moving into dungeons and trials because they expect them to be as easy as overland, and that content often hits them very hard when they find out how different it is. Especially as it is now, it's an entirely different kind of game and it deserves separate attention.

CP5

The issue with painting overland, the entire world, as a tutorial, means that the main thing that likely brought many players to ESO, out of any other MMO, fails to grow with them if they choose to engage more with the game's systems. That is why so many players comment about this feeling of apathy that they get when doing overland. There are dozens of zones, each one with their own 'end of the world' or similarly dramatic storyline, so how many times does someone need to save the world before they're expected to know what a healing skill is? I say that not to suggest everyone be forced to do anything, but to illustrate the point that, if you want to enjoy the overland content that exist now, and you find yourself enjoying the gameplay side of ESO and actively try to improve in that area, overland can be outgrown before you pass your first half dozen zones.


So, I've mentioned in the past about vet-instances. This is how the game used to work, separating, for example, AD players into the 'bronze' AD zones, DC players into the silver AD zones, and EP players into the gold AD zones. This system is still used today, to ensure no zone gets a population too large to cause performance issues, but even this cap isn't low enough, since when you have things like the Summerset holiday event, you're bound to get kicked from the server when joining those group events. Leveraging this already existing tech, to accomplish an identical goal that this tech provides in dungeons and trials, is the most sensible solution. And again, to Silver, what does it matter if the 'playerbase is split up' when a sizable number of the players who would use this option aren't even in your zone for you to see, notice, or engage with? Many of them aren't even in the game, and since zones are designed to maintain healthy player numbers, balancing players between instances, the worse case scenario would be that the vet instance has a low population, and that's honestly how many players who would use that option would like it.

Sliders wouldn't work well I feel, because as people have mentioned before, you can stand around and do nothing against most enemies and your passive health regen will outpace the incoming damage. Enemies attack slowly, waste large amounts of time of abilities that look fancy but accomplish nothing, and while I vaguely recall mentioning in the past how the system could work with the player being flagged for the higher difficulty, so enemies could explicitly be given more challenging abilities to only use against that player, even that option fails to account for any skills beyond single target attacks. You can't, for example, make an npc healer actually heal for an amount that makes their presence in the battle count, because if someone without the hardmode debuff came by, that would be unfair to them to face an empowered enemy they didn't ask for.

Challenge banners could work, in the few niche cases where quest bring you to instanced areas, but how many overland quest just take place out in the open, or in delves? Challenge banners would also have to be manually placed everywhere, being tied to the enemies they're supposed to buff, making it a time intensive solution that would fix a small number of the encounters.


So in short, ESO has a large population of casual players who enjoy overland as is. This is fantastic, and provides a healthy number of players exploring each zone, engaging with it as they wish. Why then is it such a horrible thing for a group of players to be provided a separate instance of these zones, through a tool that ZOS already ready uses, to be able to enjoy the overland content which was likely the thing that brought them to ESO in the first place?

Options allow more players to engage with the content. Dungeons have difficulty options, and maybe even a more solo friendly one coming along. Trials have options, the arenas have options, they let a wider base of players actually engage with the content that ZOS made. Why is that bad to give to overland as well, and if it is bad to give to overland, then why should ZOS even bother with solo friendly dungeons? Aren't those the 'challenge place' that causal players should just never go to?

spartaxoxo

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Forcing everyone to change their playstyle because a minority of people wouldn't be happy with increased difficulty unless everyone else was also forced to play that way is not a good idea.

I'll never agree that forced difficulty is a good thing or to the arbitrary line of what amount of hours they are allowed to make tutorial level content.

I get that you're still responding to the original comment here, but the point is that no, the zone stories are not tutorials, because no tutorial has ever, ever been 20 hours or more per zone. I disagree with that guy too for what it's worth, but the overland game is just easy, it's not a tutorial. If ZOS intends the bulk of their game to be a tutorial for other content then they're misunderstanding the motivations of a lot of the players who like the overland content, I think.

I haven't measured the files but I'd bet that overland is the bulk of the space on your hard drive, not dungeons or trials. It's the main portion of the game. If the main portion of the game is a tutorial then something is wrong.

You are hung up on the hours. The tutorial is the first content you get into that lets you understand the basics of the game. Overland is at the same easy level of difficulty everywhere you go because players are allowed to start at every quest. You imposed that limit, it's not one ZOS did. ZOS intends for new players to be able to pick any zone or quest they want and start there. That necessitates making the entire thing a similar level of difficulty. And that's exactly how it is designed.

They didn't make it extremely easy solely to cater to casuals. They also made it extremely easy so that new players can start with at whatever quest peaks their interests. If you see an ad that asks you to defend Elsweyr from dragons and you decide that's the first thing you want to do, you can.

When you say tutorial, the content as a whole is placed in that context and players are made to understand it as such, which is detrimental to change. It's like saying "pool is a tutorial for snooker" when it isn't. It's just a different game using similar equipment, and we shouldn't treat it as if it is. Doing so is misinforming the players of both. Overland is not a tutorial, it's just a different game using similar equipment.

Group content isn't an entirely different game. And all players are allowed to pick any zone as their starter zone. It used to be that they had actual starter zones like Stros M'Kai. But they abandoned that because they wanted every zone to be a starter zone so that players had the freedom to start anywhere they wanted.

When asked about the narrative chronological issues that happen by having a level less system wherein every zone is potentially a starter zone, ZOS stated this.

"[What] we're trying to avoid there is the gen one MMO problem. The cool new content launches, and new players have to play through 18 years of old content. We definitely wanted to avoid that. If they're seeing marketing images about dragons, we want them to play Elsweyr," says Firor.

So yes, every zone is designed to be easy enough that they can serve as a starter zone. All of them.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190607232034/https://www.usgamer.net/articles/elder-scrolls-online-developers-elsweyr-player-milestones-and-the-season-of-the-dragon

I don't care if this information is inconvenient to forcing increased difficulty on everyone. I think that's a bad idea for many reasons.

Difficulty options so that the content can remain engaging to established players who want more of a challenge would be nice though.

That's fine, but the point is that it is not and should not be considered preparation for dungeons and trials. It's been said that because overland is so easy it's actually harming the skill progress of players who could be moving into dungeons and trials because they expect them to be as easy as overland, and that content often hits them very hard when they find out how different it is. Especially as it is now, it's an entirely different kind of game and it deserves separate attention.

It does prepare you for normal mode dungeons and trials. I agree it's ridiculous to expect people to be prepared for vet content playing overland. And I think that's ridiculous precisely because it's starter content.

CP5 wrote: »

The issue with painting overland, the entire world, as a tutorial, means that the main thing that likely brought many players to ESO, out of any other MMO, fails to grow with them if they choose to engage more with the game's systems.

That is an issue with the lack of options, not of the current design. Every zone is a starter zone and they've explicitly stated as much. I don't need to disregard how obviously braindead easy it is to successfully make the point that people should have the option to increase the difficulty. I have no issue saying that I don't want to be stuck playing tutorial content forever and always.

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

Options allow more players to engage with the content. Dungeons have difficulty options, and maybe even a more solo friendly one coming along. Trials have options, the arenas have options, they let a wider base of players actually engage with the content that ZOS made. Why is that bad to give to overland as well...

Because they have stated that they do not want to split the playerbase.

CP5 wrote: »

...why should ZOS even bother with solo friendly dungeons? Aren't those the 'challenge place' that causal players should just never go to?

A lot of casual players enjoy dungeons, too. Also story mode dungeons would allow players to continue the story as it plays out in the dungeon at their own pace.

TaSheen

The elephant in the room:

If the entirety of each zone is (at the start) non-challenging overland but some of the "MAKE IT MORE CHALLENGING!" people want to play through the stories in that non-challenging overland.... except they find it stultifying, boring, yawn-inducing....

And if the developers have said various times that they don't want to change overland, and they don't seem inclined to develop sliders, challenge banners, any of the "solutions" proposed by those who find overland boring and don't want to run the more difficult content already provided - what do those of you who want more challenge in the zone stories expect to have happen?

SilverBride

That's a very good question.

spartaxoxo

TaSheen wrote: »

The elephant in the room:

If the entirety of each zone is (at the start) non-challenging overland but some of the "MAKE IT MORE CHALLENGING!" people want to play through the stories in that non-challenging overland.... except they find it stultifying, boring, yawn-inducing....

And if the developers have said various times that they don't want to change overland, and they don't seem inclined to develop sliders, challenge banners, any of the "solutions" proposed by those who find overland boring and don't want to run the more difficult content already provided - what do those of you who want more challenge in the zone stories expect to have happen?

I personally don't expect anything to happen. But I hold out a small amount of hope for the ideas that they haven't ever addressed in a way that shows they understand what was even asked. At this point though, I'd really just love a no with a reason why that shows they at least understand what was asked.

They made it extremely clear to myself personally that they have no intention of forcing difficulty and no intention for making a separate instance because it separates the playerbase.

For me, this is my perception of the dev conversation thus far. I know others may perceive things differently. But this is how this thread has felt to me personally. A bit exaggerating for comedic effect and because I'm not actually going to comb a thread this long chronologically.

Developers: We will not separate the playerbase or force difficulty. We tried that before and majority of our players hated it.

Player group A: That's because the way the you went about it was flawed. If you do it better this time, it would work way better. Really, It's separate instance or nothing.

Developers: Okay, nothing.

Player group A: 😲

Player group B: What about a toggle that doesn't separate players like other games?

Developers: Like we already said, no separation of players!

Player Group A: Why is my idea of a separate instance still being ignored

Developers: Sorry, it's still not happening. We don't want to force difficulty. The answer is no to that idea.

Player Group A: The silence is deafening!

Edit: Developers: Caldwell's Silver and Gold!

Player A: That's not...

Developers: Caldwell's Silver and Gold

Player Group B: I'd still like an answer on that toggle. You technically never answered it...

Developers: OMG we're not magic 🪄 player b. You can't just flip a switch!

Player group A: I mean, I don't like that idea for actually legitimate reasons. Now about that separate instance?

Developers: Still no.

Player group A: I'll check back in a few months to see if it's still no.

Player group B: It will be.

Mods: This conversation has been edited for back and forth. Please remember to be civil to one another.

Player C: I am writing today, without reading any recent or opening posts, to tell you about my brand new idea. What if we were to make a separate instance?

disky

TaSheen wrote: »

The elephant in the room:

If the entirety of each zone is (at the start) non-challenging overland but some of the "MAKE IT MORE CHALLENGING!" people want to play through the stories in that non-challenging overland.... except they find it stultifying, boring, yawn-inducing....

And if the developers have said various times that they don't want to change overland, and they don't seem inclined to develop sliders, challenge banners, any of the "solutions" proposed by those who find overland boring and don't want to run the more difficult content already provided - what do those of you who want more challenge in the zone stories expect to have happen?

I've already responded to this question posed by you a few pages ago, so I'll copy/paste:

"I'll take a roll of the dice over no possibility of anything ever changing for the better. Never speaking up only tells ZOS that there is no demand for change. If someone loves the game but thinks it's missing something, they can either tell the developers about it or get frustrated and leave. I don't want to leave so here I am."

disky

spartaxoxo wrote: »

snip

I think we all know that ZOS will do what ZOS will do. Whether it's a separate instance, a slider, something else...what matters is that people keep talking about it. I have my personal thoughts about an ideal scenario but the fact is that there are a lot of people with this grievance and ignoring it is bad for players and bad for ZOS.

TaSheen

My feeling is that if it were an overwhelming number of people clamoring for "more challenging overland" ZOS would have either already done something about it or be working on it.

And they have done a few things: Bastion Nymic and Infinite Archive (both stated as "response" to "more challenging") - and I personally have found Necrom and Apocrypha more difficult overland (but of course that's just me).

ZOS has the numbers. Even if the numbers are in the "more challenge" group's favor, I'm sure they have a process in place to deal with such a major change, and who knows how long that cycle might be.

spartaxoxo

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

snip

I think we all know that ZOS will do what ZOS will do. Whether it's a separate instance, a slider, something else...what matters is that people keep talking about it. I have my personal thoughts about an ideal scenario but the fact is that there are a lot of people with this grievance and ignoring it is bad for players and bad for ZOS.

Sure. But I still wish they'd respond to something other than the same 2 ideas that they have shot down once or twice a year for the past 3 years. But at the same time, I don't blame them because much of the feedback is the same thing they've been hearing.

@Credible_Joe's idea is the first new idea I've heard in ages. It was a breath of fresh air to read. It was idea that was crafted based off feedback from all player groups. If they can come up with something like that, I don't see why ZOS can't figure out something that would meet their stated goals and still give us an option.

ZOS has stated they want

1) New players to be able to start anywhere
2) To keep the playerbase together and not split them up
3) To have stories that everyone can beat

Many ideas that respect those 3 goals have been suggested, but ZOS hasn't commented on any of them. For example, a debuff slider that doesn't split players ala their own single player games and lotro. Their comments have been mostly in interviews instead of in this thread. I joked around about the silence because at least why not a separate instance has been answered. But I actually do think that people have a point that it would be so great for players here to actually give us answers in this actual thread.

At this point, it feels like this thread is just for us to discuss with one another and they don't actually care about is being suggested here. Feels like yelling into a void.

disky

TaSheen wrote: »

My feeling is that if it were an overwhelming number of people clamoring for "more challenging overland" ZOS would have either already done something about it or be working on it.

And they have done a few things: Bastion Nymic and Infinite Archive (both stated as "response" to "more challenging") - and I personally have found Necrom and Apocrypha more difficult overland (but of course that's just me).

ZOS has the numbers. Even if the numbers are in the "more challenge" group's favor, I'm sure they have a process in place to deal with such a major change, and who knows how long that cycle might be.

I am sure that the majority of people who regularly take part in overland content enjoy it at the level of difficulty it's at right now, but that metric misses a couple of important factors: people who don't like it don't do it, and people who don't find something for them in ESO stop playing. I want to do overland, I want to enjoy it, but I don't do it because it's unsatisfying. I feel like I am in the minority of players willing to stick around and complain in the forums about it with the hope that it will change, but here we are with the biggest thread on the forum, full of people talking about it. Even with many of the people who hold my opinion bugging out (including many of my friends), this is still the biggest thread on the forum. So there's obviously something to it, right?

ZOS has the numbers but they know they're also failing to serve a huge group of people that would love the game if they just listened and did something about this.

TaSheen

Eh, so far, I'm not one who fits the "stories that everyone can beat" demographic. High Isle was my last attempt at that.

It didn't go well. It took me DAYS of agony to get through it. I've never even considered attempting the following zone stories. Not hap'nin. And.... up to that point.... zone questing was what I lived for.

spartaxoxo

TaSheen wrote: »

Eh, so far, I'm not one who fits the "stories that everyone can beat" demographic. High Isle was my last attempt at that.

It didn't go well. It took me DAYS of agony to get through it. I've never even considered attempting the following zone stories. Not hap'nin. And.... up to that point.... zone questing was what I lived for.

Necrom's final boss would probably be easier for you. You have ages to activate the synergy