Overland Content Feedback Thread

disky · June 18

TaSheen wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

But, the part I just will never be able to wrap my head around is why all of that means these complaints should be ignored. There's been suggestions like sliders or that hybrid solution CredibleJoe came up with that take those concerns into account.

Still nothing but crickets.

Well.... I guess that's an answer, ain't? I find it.... an abdication of major proportions, even though I'm on the side of "don't mess up the current iteration/*not difficulty* of overland".

I just don't want to have to deal with anything difficult in a game I play for fun. At this point in my life I have QUITE enough to deal with IRL - a game I play to escape RL isn't something I expect to throw a lot of difficult mechanics at me - and should that occur in the future (it hasn't - yet - barring some serious issues with my sat connection) I would most likely have to find something else to play.

That would make me very sad. And yeah - no one would care, I'm just one pretty old gamer, and the money I spend is a drop in the bucket.

I can always go back to Skyrim. I've not installed it on my new machine (nor Oblivion) - but I can of course. *shrug* Mostly ESO pushes all my buttons, but of course I'm as usual a minority of one.

To be honest, when Skywind and/or Skyblivion come out, I'll be stepping away from ESO for quite some time.

(I'll be playing them at max difficulty)

TaSheen · June 18

Whatever floats your boat Disky. I'll be looking at them, but if they're anywhere close to as hard as say Elden Ring on "normal" I won't be playing them either.

colossalvoids · June 18

TaSheen wrote: »

Whatever floats your boat Disky. I'll be looking at them, but if they're anywhere close to as hard as say Elden Ring on "normal" I won't be playing them either.

Both are literally Skyrim, difficulty setting would be exactly th same experience minus new mechanics that would contribute in both directions depending on player's wits.

TaSheen · June 18

colossalvoids wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Whatever floats your boat Disky. I'll be looking at them, but if they're anywhere close to as hard as say Elden Ring on "normal" I won't be playing them either.

Both are literally Skyrim, difficulty setting would be exactly th same experience minus new mechanics that would contribute in both directions depending on player's wits.

Nice to know - I haven't really looked at the sites because I really hate to get spoilers while waiting maybe years for stuff.

disky · June 19

colossalvoids wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Whatever floats your boat Disky. I'll be looking at them, but if they're anywhere close to as hard as say Elden Ring on "normal" I won't be playing them either.

Both are literally Skyrim, difficulty setting would be exactly th same experience minus new mechanics that would contribute in both directions depending on player's wits.

With games like Skyrim and Cyberpunk I actually mod them to be significantly more difficult than the standard Max Difficulty. In Skyrim I increased monster group spawns, added survival mechanics and mods like Frostfall to keep me on my toes.

Not that I would ever expect features like those in ESO. I'd happily take what I could get here.

disky · June 19

My last comment got me thinking about why players enjoy challenge in videogames. The easiest answer is that for some of us, it's simply fun to overcome a difficult thing. That is what most games amount to. But I think there's another aspect to it that I'm not sure I have ever articulated clearly in this thread.

When I am playing a game and I breeze through the content without any expectation of being challenged, I don't feel like I'm connected to the world. It's like enabling god mode or noclip; you're in the game, but you're not really playing the game. And that can be fun for a little while, but if I want to be immersed it needs to feel like the stakes are high and that my actions actually mean something to people. The only way for that notion to crystallize for me is for there to be an appropriate degree of difficulty, because if I can obliterate whatever falls into my path then none of the creatures, evil nobles or scheming Daedric Princes have any actual meaningful antagonistic presence in the world, and so why would anyone even care about their plans?

I think that many people who want overland challenge options may simply want to feel that sense of overcoming the challenge, but for others it's also about immersion, and that's what makes the current state of things so disappointing for me personally. I love TES because of the capacity it has to deliver adventures. I'm not here to check boxes or collect skill points. Those aspects can be fun, but the most important thing is that I feel the sense of contributing to the world in some way. If there's no degree of challenge in overland then there's no possibility for that to happen and I'm not here to help anyone, I'm just sightseeing.

Muizer · June 19

@disky I think that is definitely a big part of it. I'm not a very skilled player. There is plenty of content that, from a pure difficulty pov, is hard for me in ESO. But all of that takes the form of obstacle courses with grotesque bosses and contrived mechanics that you're supposed to repeat over and over again until you 'get it right'. Overland is just beautiful, but it never punishes you for mistakes and as a consequence is completely devoid of suspense. Neither comes close to capturing the essence of the Elder Scrolls experience: the mixed sense of wonder, dread and anticipation that comes from exploring a beautiful but potentially lethal world. That's quite sad IMHO.

colossalvoids · June 19

disky wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Whatever floats your boat Disky. I'll be looking at them, but if they're anywhere close to as hard as say Elden Ring on "normal" I won't be playing them either.

Both are literally Skyrim, difficulty setting would be exactly th same experience minus new mechanics that would contribute in both directions depending on player's wits.

With games like Skyrim and Cyberpunk I actually mod them to be significantly more difficult than the standard Max Difficulty. In Skyrim I increased monster group spawns, added survival mechanics and mods like Frostfall to keep me on my toes.

Not that I would ever expect features like those in ESO. I'd happily take what I could get here.

Funny enough I don't mod the difficulty much and I also don't play on those "legendary" ones as bullet sponges aren't my type of challenge (I'd prefer 3-5-7 hits both for me and the boss rather than 20 min wack, hence I like Souls for that I can die easy if not paying attention). Things like survival modes or not abusing the systems (craft loops or spellcraft) is my preferred way of playing. Given I'd still take improved AI every time or make some other tweaks like leveled zones / morrowloot as scaling was always a bad thing in such games imo, some zones should be considerably more difficult than others just simply lore wise, same as daedric equipment should be scarce as hell.

Franchise408 · June 19

colossalvoids wrote: »

disky wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Before I buy this Addon. Did they do anything for Overland-Difficulty yet? I cant find anything in the Patch Notes.

Sadly no. I haven't purchased Gold Road but I read the full patch notes and I've been playing the game outside of GR. No apparent difference. I imagine that if it happens, it will be a big deal in the community.

Meanwhile taking Elden Ring dlc instead of GR, can't always be unhappy and fight for bits of possible future enjoyment when can just enjoy things. It feels like a lost battle anyway.

It's not that I hate the game or that I'm always unhappy. I like the game a lot. I play the game a lot. It's just that the thing I want most out of it is the thing I can't enjoy, and so I'm here. For what it's worth I stopped playing Elden Ring because the story is incomprehensible and there was no realistic motivation for the main character beyond "I wanna be the guy". Which is fine if you don't mind the story being relatively shallow and I'm not trying to criticize anyone's interest in it. Just couldn't find a reason to keep going myself.

Tes for me always were quest games, but this particular one I'm enjoying currently only as an mmo, dungeons to be exact. Even when writing is good it bumps into "gameplay not following the narrative" issue, like daedra being a push over, zones roll over etc. Not even talking the Princes, obviously.

ER is entirely different way of story telling and if you can decipher it, it's insanely rewarding. It's a puzzle game lore wise. Was able to relive Morrowind/Oblivion with it and not how they were actually depth wise (not too deep), but how they felt years when they've came out, mystic and alien.

This is my issue. Due to the overland content being tediously easy and mind numbingly simple, all ESO offers me is dungeon and trial content. So instead of being able to be immersed in the world, I am relegated to one aspect of gameplay.

I keep hearing about how "vet content will split the playerbase", but the simple truth is, I'm not playing with those people anyways, and with mind numbingly simple overland gameplay, I am pushed out of it entirely. If there were more challenging overland, with more of a reason to actually work alongside others, I'd be more inclined to actually play with players in the overland. But as it is, everything is just done solo, there is 0 reason to actually play with others in overland content.

In terms of Elden Ring, I'm the type of player where story is literally the least important aspect of the game. I play for the gameplay dynamics and the challenge. It doesn't always have to be Soulslike challenge, but at times, games like Elden Ring offer a nice alternative. So the lack of story in ER bothered me none. But that's me, personally.

SilverBride · June 19

Franchise408 wrote: »

Due to the overland content being tediously easy and mind numbingly simple, all ESO offers me is dungeon and trial content.

And Arenas, and Bastion Nymics and the Infinite Archive, and World Bosses, and Wandering World Bosses, and Oblivion Portals, and Geysers, and Harrowstorms, and Vents, and Incursions.

spartaxoxo · June 19

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Due to the overland content being tediously easy and mind numbingly simple, all ESO offers me is dungeon and trial content.

And Arenas, and Bastion Nymics and the Infinite Archive, and World Bosses, and Wandering World Bosses, and Oblivion Portals, and Geysers, and Harrowstorms, and Vents, and Incursions.

Arenas and Infinite Archive, yes. The other stuff, not particularly. The majority of it is not that hard. And with IA, I have to clear to around Arc 4 before it becomes the challenge I'm looking for. So, I seldom actually get one from there because it takes too long to reach it.

BasP · June 19

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Due to the overland content being tediously easy and mind numbingly simple, all ESO offers me is dungeon and trial content.

And Arenas, and Bastion Nymics and the Infinite Archive, and World Bosses, and Wandering World Bosses, and Oblivion Portals, and Geysers, and Harrowstorms, and Vents, and Incursions.

... Perhaps they also find that content pretty easy? It's not like those World Events you mentioned for example can't be done by one player (though I haven't had to do an Incursion solo yet, so maybe that one will be different) and the same goes for all of the World Bosses. Except that one in Murkmire perhaps.

colossalvoids · June 20

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Due to the overland content being tediously easy and mind numbingly simple, all ESO offers me is dungeon and trial content.

And Arenas, and Bastion Nymics and the Infinite Archive, and World Bosses, and Wandering World Bosses, and Oblivion Portals, and Geysers, and Harrowstorms, and Vents, and Incursions.

Hope you've been disingenuous knowingly all this time, as when people ask to be part of stories and have engagement with elder scrolls it's pretty... weird, to try them do couple bosses or a singular world event in the zone to be fulfilled and justify even entering the zone.

SilverBride · June 20

I am just pointing out that there is a LOT of challenging content besides dungeons and trials. The World Bosses and events such as Incursions have gotten increasingly difficult over time and are quite challenging. These things are part of Overland.

disky · June 20

SilverBride wrote: »

I am just pointing out that there is a LOT of challenging content besides dungeons and trials. The World Bosses and events such as Incursions have gotten increasingly difficult over time and are quite challenging. These things are part of Overland.

I'm not sure if you saw my comment a few posts back, but I did my best to describe why none of that matters to me personally. Obviously there are people who think differently, but I'd bet that a lot of people in this thread agree.

casparian · June 20

SilverBride wrote: »

I am just pointing out that there is a LOT of challenging content besides dungeons and trials. The World Bosses and events such as Incursions have gotten increasingly difficult over time and are quite challenging. These things are part of Overland.

Yeah, parts of Overland that have nothing to do with allowing everyone to play the vast majority of content in the game (quests) at the difficulty they find most immersive.

Cersenin · June 20

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Due to the overland content being tediously easy and mind numbingly simple, all ESO offers me is dungeon and trial content.

And Arenas, and Bastion Nymics and the Infinite Archive, and World Bosses, and Wandering World Bosses, and Oblivion Portals, and Geysers, and Harrowstorms, and Vents, and Incursions.

I am here for the quests. The stories are amazing, but without a challenge, they're pointless for me. That's why I don't even bother to play the Gold Rode chapter.

Franchise408 · June 22

Cersenin wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Due to the overland content being tediously easy and mind numbingly simple, all ESO offers me is dungeon and trial content.

And Arenas, and Bastion Nymics and the Infinite Archive, and World Bosses, and Wandering World Bosses, and Oblivion Portals, and Geysers, and Harrowstorms, and Vents, and Incursions.

I am here for the quests. The stories are amazing, but without a challenge, they're pointless for me. That's why I don't even bother to play the Gold Rode chapter.

I decided a long time ago that I will never play the questlines again. They are absolutely torturous to play through due to the simplistic and far too easy difficulty setting.

I am not in agreement that the game should be balanced for the players who are incapable of handling any sort of challenge, or have bad internet connections, or anything like that. I'm sorry if that comes off as callous, but I do not believe that a game should be tailored for the lowest denominator. I also don't think the game should be tailored for the highest level sweats either. But as long as overland stays as it is, I refuse to ever engage with the content.

disky · June 22

Franchise408 wrote: »

Cersenin wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Due to the overland content being tediously easy and mind numbingly simple, all ESO offers me is dungeon and trial content.

And Arenas, and Bastion Nymics and the Infinite Archive, and World Bosses, and Wandering World Bosses, and Oblivion Portals, and Geysers, and Harrowstorms, and Vents, and Incursions.

I am here for the quests. The stories are amazing, but without a challenge, they're pointless for me. That's why I don't even bother to play the Gold Rode chapter.

I decided a long time ago that I will never play the questlines again. They are absolutely torturous to play through due to the simplistic and far too easy difficulty setting.

I am not in agreement that the game should be balanced for the players who are incapable of handling any sort of challenge, or have bad internet connections, or anything like that. I'm sorry if that comes off as callous, but I do not believe that a game should be tailored for the lowest denominator. I also don't think the game should be tailored for the highest level sweats either. But as long as overland stays as it is, I refuse to ever engage with the content.

Most non-MMO games have difficulty settings which allow a player to choose their degree of challenge. For many people, this isn't just a choice, it's an accessibility setting. We have had people in this thread who have noted that they would be incapable of playing the game if it were more difficult, and I don't think there's any reason to exclude them from it. There is nothing stopping an MMO like ESO from delivering a similar feature to the difficulty settings of single-player games, it just comes down to the design and implementation.

Franchise408 · June 22

disky wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Cersenin wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Due to the overland content being tediously easy and mind numbingly simple, all ESO offers me is dungeon and trial content.

And Arenas, and Bastion Nymics and the Infinite Archive, and World Bosses, and Wandering World Bosses, and Oblivion Portals, and Geysers, and Harrowstorms, and Vents, and Incursions.

I am here for the quests. The stories are amazing, but without a challenge, they're pointless for me. That's why I don't even bother to play the Gold Rode chapter.

I decided a long time ago that I will never play the questlines again. They are absolutely torturous to play through due to the simplistic and far too easy difficulty setting.

I am not in agreement that the game should be balanced for the players who are incapable of handling any sort of challenge, or have bad internet connections, or anything like that. I'm sorry if that comes off as callous, but I do not believe that a game should be tailored for the lowest denominator. I also don't think the game should be tailored for the highest level sweats either. But as long as overland stays as it is, I refuse to ever engage with the content.

Most non-MMO games have difficulty settings which allow a player to choose their degree of challenge. For many people, this isn't just a choice, it's an accessibility setting. We have had people in this thread who have noted that they would be incapable of playing the game if it were more difficult, and I don't think there's any reason to exclude them from it. There is nothing stopping an MMO like ESO from delivering a similar feature to the difficulty settings of single-player games, it just comes down to the design and implementation.

I can empathize with players who have difficulties playing, but I don't think the game should be catered to that audience. Have settings that allow for that level of difficulty, sure, but that should not be the default setting.

I've played a lot of MMO's in my lifetime, and ESO is by far the absolute easiest, and it's to a point that it is actively detrimental to the experience. But for those who are unable to keep up with basic gameplay mechanics, perhaps an action RPG isn't the proper genre for someone with those limitations.

disky · June 22

Franchise408 wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Cersenin wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Due to the overland content being tediously easy and mind numbingly simple, all ESO offers me is dungeon and trial content.

And Arenas, and Bastion Nymics and the Infinite Archive, and World Bosses, and Wandering World Bosses, and Oblivion Portals, and Geysers, and Harrowstorms, and Vents, and Incursions.

I am here for the quests. The stories are amazing, but without a challenge, they're pointless for me. That's why I don't even bother to play the Gold Rode chapter.

I decided a long time ago that I will never play the questlines again. They are absolutely torturous to play through due to the simplistic and far too easy difficulty setting.

I am not in agreement that the game should be balanced for the players who are incapable of handling any sort of challenge, or have bad internet connections, or anything like that. I'm sorry if that comes off as callous, but I do not believe that a game should be tailored for the lowest denominator. I also don't think the game should be tailored for the highest level sweats either. But as long as overland stays as it is, I refuse to ever engage with the content.

Most non-MMO games have difficulty settings which allow a player to choose their degree of challenge. For many people, this isn't just a choice, it's an accessibility setting. We have had people in this thread who have noted that they would be incapable of playing the game if it were more difficult, and I don't think there's any reason to exclude them from it. There is nothing stopping an MMO like ESO from delivering a similar feature to the difficulty settings of single-player games, it just comes down to the design and implementation.

I can empathize with players who have difficulties playing, but I don't think the game should be catered to that audience. Have settings that allow for that level of difficulty, sure, but that should not be the default setting.

I've played a lot of MMO's in my lifetime, and ESO is by far the absolute easiest, and it's to a point that it is actively detrimental to the experience. But for those who are unable to keep up with basic gameplay mechanics, perhaps an action RPG isn't the proper genre for someone with those limitations.

If you're not interested in allowing players of all skill levels to enjoy the game, consider the following:

a. ZOS likes it this way because it makes them a lot of money.

b. The argument you're making swings both ways.

The only way you're going to see any kind of change is if you're willing to accept that the game isn't built for one type of person or one skill level, it's meant to be enjoyed by lots of different people simultaneously. It's been that way for a long time. The best thing we can do is push for options, rather than telling players they shouldn't play the game the way it's been played for years. As far as you and I are concerned, at the moment, overland challenge isn't meant for us, and it's a bit silly to tell those who like it as it is that they're wrong. Doing that places you on the back foot because they're the ones who appreciate the status quo, and we are in the minority. It's in our best interest to coexist.

Franchise408 · June 22

disky wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Cersenin wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Due to the overland content being tediously easy and mind numbingly simple, all ESO offers me is dungeon and trial content.

And Arenas, and Bastion Nymics and the Infinite Archive, and World Bosses, and Wandering World Bosses, and Oblivion Portals, and Geysers, and Harrowstorms, and Vents, and Incursions.

I am here for the quests. The stories are amazing, but without a challenge, they're pointless for me. That's why I don't even bother to play the Gold Rode chapter.

I decided a long time ago that I will never play the questlines again. They are absolutely torturous to play through due to the simplistic and far too easy difficulty setting.

I am not in agreement that the game should be balanced for the players who are incapable of handling any sort of challenge, or have bad internet connections, or anything like that. I'm sorry if that comes off as callous, but I do not believe that a game should be tailored for the lowest denominator. I also don't think the game should be tailored for the highest level sweats either. But as long as overland stays as it is, I refuse to ever engage with the content.

Most non-MMO games have difficulty settings which allow a player to choose their degree of challenge. For many people, this isn't just a choice, it's an accessibility setting. We have had people in this thread who have noted that they would be incapable of playing the game if it were more difficult, and I don't think there's any reason to exclude them from it. There is nothing stopping an MMO like ESO from delivering a similar feature to the difficulty settings of single-player games, it just comes down to the design and implementation.

I can empathize with players who have difficulties playing, but I don't think the game should be catered to that audience. Have settings that allow for that level of difficulty, sure, but that should not be the default setting.

I've played a lot of MMO's in my lifetime, and ESO is by far the absolute easiest, and it's to a point that it is actively detrimental to the experience. But for those who are unable to keep up with basic gameplay mechanics, perhaps an action RPG isn't the proper genre for someone with those limitations.

If you're not interested in allowing players of all skill levels to enjoy the game, consider the following:

a. ZOS likes it this way because it makes them a lot of money.

b. The argument you're making swings both ways.

The only way you're going to see any kind of change is if you're willing to accept that the game isn't built for one type of person or one skill level, it's meant to be enjoyed by lots of different people simultaneously. It's been that way for a long time. The best thing we can do is push for options, rather than telling players they shouldn't play the game the way it's been played for years. As far as you and I are concerned, at the moment, overland challenge isn't meant for us, and it's a bit silly to tell those who like it as it is that they're wrong. Doing that places you on the back foot because they're the ones who appreciate the status quo, and we are in the minority. It's in our best interest to coexist.

Eh, I've reached a point where there's no need to co-exist. I just simply don't engage with overland content. ZOS can lose my yearly chapter expansion sale, lose out on my crown store purchases from my more infrequent logins, and it's to a point where I recognize that the game isn't meant for me. I constantly hear the argument about "not wanting to split the playerbase", but when that segment of the playerbase fizzles out, the base has effectively been split.

Leaving my logging in to do trials a couple times a month with my guild isn't going to give me the investment to buy crowns and engage with the crown store like I used to as a regular, it doesn't give me the motivation to subscribe to ESO+ like I used to, I have 0 rush to go out and buy new expansions like I used to. If ZOS has determined that they are okay with that, then clearly I am not the intended audience for this game, and there's no need for me to be a regular customer with them anymore. I can go off to other MMO's that give me a far preferable experience than what I'm getting here.

spartaxoxo · June 22

The vast majority of players use the story quests. They aren't going to throw away that money to chase after a small minority of people on a 10 year old game. The game shouldn't be balanced for the people who don't play it. But, for the people who actually play it. Any changes to overland need to be optional. There's no reason we can't co-exist.

disky · June 22

Franchise408 wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Cersenin wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Due to the overland content being tediously easy and mind numbingly simple, all ESO offers me is dungeon and trial content.

And Arenas, and Bastion Nymics and the Infinite Archive, and World Bosses, and Wandering World Bosses, and Oblivion Portals, and Geysers, and Harrowstorms, and Vents, and Incursions.

I am here for the quests. The stories are amazing, but without a challenge, they're pointless for me. That's why I don't even bother to play the Gold Rode chapter.

I decided a long time ago that I will never play the questlines again. They are absolutely torturous to play through due to the simplistic and far too easy difficulty setting.

I am not in agreement that the game should be balanced for the players who are incapable of handling any sort of challenge, or have bad internet connections, or anything like that. I'm sorry if that comes off as callous, but I do not believe that a game should be tailored for the lowest denominator. I also don't think the game should be tailored for the highest level sweats either. But as long as overland stays as it is, I refuse to ever engage with the content.

Most non-MMO games have difficulty settings which allow a player to choose their degree of challenge. For many people, this isn't just a choice, it's an accessibility setting. We have had people in this thread who have noted that they would be incapable of playing the game if it were more difficult, and I don't think there's any reason to exclude them from it. There is nothing stopping an MMO like ESO from delivering a similar feature to the difficulty settings of single-player games, it just comes down to the design and implementation.

I can empathize with players who have difficulties playing, but I don't think the game should be catered to that audience. Have settings that allow for that level of difficulty, sure, but that should not be the default setting.

I've played a lot of MMO's in my lifetime, and ESO is by far the absolute easiest, and it's to a point that it is actively detrimental to the experience. But for those who are unable to keep up with basic gameplay mechanics, perhaps an action RPG isn't the proper genre for someone with those limitations.

If you're not interested in allowing players of all skill levels to enjoy the game, consider the following:

a. ZOS likes it this way because it makes them a lot of money.

b. The argument you're making swings both ways.

The only way you're going to see any kind of change is if you're willing to accept that the game isn't built for one type of person or one skill level, it's meant to be enjoyed by lots of different people simultaneously. It's been that way for a long time. The best thing we can do is push for options, rather than telling players they shouldn't play the game the way it's been played for years. As far as you and I are concerned, at the moment, overland challenge isn't meant for us, and it's a bit silly to tell those who like it as it is that they're wrong. Doing that places you on the back foot because they're the ones who appreciate the status quo, and we are in the minority. It's in our best interest to coexist.

Eh, I've reached a point where there's no need to co-exist. I just simply don't engage with overland content. ZOS can lose my yearly chapter expansion sale, lose out on my crown store purchases from my more infrequent logins, and it's to a point where I recognize that the game isn't meant for me. I constantly hear the argument about "not wanting to split the playerbase", but when that segment of the playerbase fizzles out, the base has effectively been split.

Leaving my logging in to do trials a couple times a month with my guild isn't going to give me the investment to buy crowns and engage with the crown store like I used to as a regular, it doesn't give me the motivation to subscribe to ESO+ like I used to, I have 0 rush to go out and buy new expansions like I used to. If ZOS has determined that they are okay with that, then clearly I am not the intended audience for this game, and there's no need for me to be a regular customer with them anymore. I can go off to other MMO's that give me a far preferable experience than what I'm getting here.

Hey, I canceled ESO Plus and didn't buy Gold Road. We're of the same mind in that regard. My point is that there is no possibility of ZOS adjusting the overland challenge for everyone to suit your desire, nor should they need to. If everyone can enjoy the game in a way that suits them, does it really matter if they're all experiencing it in the same way? In overland we aren't out to compare ourselves to one another, so there's no need for a level playing field.

Franchise408 · June 22

spartaxoxo wrote: »

The vast majority of players use the story quests. They aren't going to throw away that money to chase after a small minority of people on a 10 year old game. The game shouldn't be balanced for the people who don't play it. But, for the people who actually play it. Any changes to overland need to be optional. There's no reason we can't co-exist.

It's not about balancing it for people who don't play it. I would be playing it if it had more to offer me. I am a very potential customer for ZOS - huge BGS games fan, Elder Scrolls being my favorite gaming franchise of all time, also an MMO fan, so the combination of the 2 is already a huge incentive for me. I am the foundational audience for this game. As is, I have thousands of hours in the game, have previously had long term subscriptions, multiple chapters, and plenty of money spent in the crown store. All of this done on 2 platforms - PC and X-Box. I am actually the perfect audience for ZOS.

If the game actually offered me more reason to log in, I would be a big continued customer for them. As is, they have determined that they don't need nor want my business, they have determined that I am not the player they want to entice to bring into the game. I have received that message loud and clear. When the creator of the product is telling me that they don't want me as a consumer of their product, I will listen.

Seeing my history with the IP, and the actual product itself, I certainly have an opinion on the matter. ZOS has also determined that the consequences of losing me as a continued customer are an acceptable loss for them. So fair is fair on both side. ZOS will cater to the demographic that they want, and since I am not part of that demographic, I will take my gaming time and money to other games that offer a far preferable experience. If and when ZOS releases content that speaks to me, I will re-engage with it, but if the standard is going to be to balance the vast majority of the game to the lowest skill level, while relegating me to a yearly trial and a few dungeons here or there, then I know that my re-engagement with the game and company is going to be minimal at most.

disky · June 22

Franchise408 wrote: »

snip

I understand, but your previous posts were about why the overland game should be geared toward your preferences and no one else, which is why I disagreed and stated that options were the more effective solution. We weren't talking about your viability as a customer. I think we're in agreement that ZOS could do more to serve those who want a challenge, but disagree on the method. That's what the conversation was about.

Franchise408 · June 22

disky wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

snip

I understand, but your previous posts were about why the overland game should be geared toward your preferences and no one else, which is why I disagreed and stated that options were the more effective solution. We weren't talking about your viability as a customer. I think we're in agreement that ZOS could do more to serve those who want a challenge, but disagree on the method. That's what the conversation was about.

And my opinion on that remains - I do not believe that a game like ESO should be designed for the lowest level of skill available for people who aren't even able to functionally play the game. People lacking coordination to be able to push buttons, or have weak and inconsistent internet connections should not be the consideration when designing the vast bulk of the game's content. It is my opinion that an APRG might not be the right type of game for people with those sorts of disadvantages.

Play a single player game where you can personalize your settings however you like. For a multiplayer game, where everyone is impacted by the settings, I think it's a mistake to base your game's balance - particularly of the most prevalent part of the game - on people of the lowest capabilities. There should be a minimum expectation to be able to play the game. There are already system requirements to physically run the game, and if you don't have the in game capability to be able to function within the game's mechanics, I don't believe the game should lessen itself for that demographic.

ZOS disagrees, and again, I am not the preferred player for ZOS. That's fine. As a fan of the Elder Scrolls series, and as a player of ESO in some capacity since Beta, I certainly have my opinion on that and on the game's direction. My post and your point are fundamentally related to each other.

spartaxoxo · June 22

Franchise408 wrote: »

snip

Also, if we want to talk viability, the game was catered towards more challenge. It failed. Catering towards a broader demographic of people improved the game for everyone. We wouldn't have the trials or anything else we have now, if people couldn't just play how they wanted to play.

The only issue now is the lack of difficulty options for those of who do want it.

I don't think any single player style is worth a second collapse of the game. It's also, I think, much easier to put difficulty in than to take it out. I've noticed games that cater towards difficulty tend to talk about it being too challenging to take difficulty out. Meanwhile games that default to being easier tend to easily offer sliders and extra mechanics to make things harder.

Imagine declaring an entire genre of game as not suited for a casual audience....There's really no reason a game that's been friendly for them for 10 years should suddenly become hostile imo. Difficulty options give players who seek a challenge more to do without alienating the vast majority of the playerbase.

Franchise408 · June 23

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

snip

Also, if we want to talk viability, the game was catered towards more challenge. It failed. Catering towards a broader demographic of people improved the game for everyone. We wouldn't have the trials or anything else we have now, if people couldn't just play how they wanted to play.

The only issue now is the lack of difficulty options for those of who do want it.

I don't think any single player style is worth a second collapse of the game. It's also, I think, much easier to put difficulty in than to take it out. I've noticed games that cater towards difficulty tend to talk about it being too challenging to take difficulty out. Meanwhile games that default to being easier tend to easily offer sliders and extra mechanics to make things harder.

Imagine declaring an entire genre of game as not suited for a casual audience....There's really no reason a game that's been friendly for them for 10 years should suddenly become hostile imo. Difficulty options give players who seek a challenge more to do without alienating the vast majority of the playerbase.

And as has been stated many times over the years of this thread, the game didn't struggle because of difficulty. It struggled because of the overall game design with was very user unfriendly. It was much more difficult to actually play with friends if you didn't coordinate to create in the same faction, and the game's version of "challenge" was basically just repeating the same content as a new faction. Game design hurt ESO, not the difficulty. This can be seen with all the games that do provide challenge that are just as big as ESO. Online FPS, competitive RTS, Soulslike, sports games, can go on and on. ESO has a built in audience that would make the game a success regardless of the difficulty. The game's early struggles were design problems.

Also, I'm not suggesting that an entire genre be hostile to casuals. I'm suggesting that people who state their reason for needing easy difficulty are because of bad Internet connections and inability to push the buttons needed to play the game are the demographic that should not be balanced around. There's plenty of games that I consider myself "not good enough" to play, but those games shouldn't then be dumbed down for me to play. If playing a particular type of game presents that much of a challenge for you, perhaps you should be re-evaluating the types of games you're playing instead of demanding they be dumbed down for you.

Casual, and lacking basic gameplay ability to engage with game mechanics, are 2 entirely separate things. You can be casual and still be capable. I consider myself casual in many types of games, and more of an enthusiast in others. As an enthusiast for Elder Scrolls games, it's sad to see the core foundation of the game relegated to such a state as we see ESO's overland. The portion of the game that might give me an Elder Scrolls type of experience is a complete non-starter to me because of its poor design.

SilverBride · June 23

Franchise408 wrote: »

...has been stated many times over the years of this thread, the game didn't struggle because of difficulty...

I struggled because of difficulty as did my friends who also left the game because of it. It was not unusual for me to die to trash mobs when trying to quest and play through the story. That was not my idea of a fun time. Then there was Craglorn... the difficulty made it impossible to quest, or do anything solo in that zone.

Yes the factions being divided were a factor but most of us just made alts in all the factions so we could play with our friends. But the difficulty is what drove us off.