Overland Content Feedback Thread

spartaxoxo

Faulgor wrote: »

You could point out that there is a difference in expected difficulty between story and group content, but that just shows that the answer isn't that simple. Just like there are still people who want to experience group content in a story mode (which gets requested about as often), there are people who want to experience the story content at a higher difficulty.
Separating content difficulty by content type - hard instanced group dungeons vs easy story content - was a decision that ZOS made, and I think there is enough player demand for some cross-over there.

Honestly, I prefer the way Rich said things better because I do think it was more neutral in tone, but they communicated the same point. Which is that they had a lot of feedback that the game was too difficult back then, which was what lead them to separate the difficulty the way that they did. And that this separation of difficulty was a major factor in their success. And that they find this important to note, because to this day players mostly don't do the difficult content.

I do think there is more room for overlap though, as you phrase it. I think they could introduce difficulty in some feasible way to story content and likewise I think the game would benefit from a story mode for instanced group stuff. I think plenty of vet players would like to do the story quests if they were more challenging, and ones that already do them might like them better. And I think plenty of people are interested in the story part of the dungeons. I don't think it's necessarily the majority that would use such things, but that doesn't mean it's so little there's no point in doing literally anything at all.

XomRhoK

I think difficulty levels for overland content must be implemented and they must not divide player base. The only cheap and fast option as i can see is placing debuff on player, who decided increase difficulty of overland content.
I think, that ZOS need make difficulty sliders in the game menu, which will place invisible debuff on player's character, similar to Vulnerability and Maim, debuff will be applied only in overland areas:
- normal -> x1.5 -> x2 -> x3 -> x5 -> x7 -> x10 damage player receives from monsters except world bosses
- normal -> x0.66 -> x0.5 -> x0.33 -> x0.2 -> x0.15 -> x0.1 damage player deals to monsters except world bosses
And, maybe, additionally (if it doesn't take long for the developers to mark all quest and delve bosses as a separate subclass):
- normal -> x1.5 -> x2 -> x3 -> x5 -> x7 -> x10 -> x15 -> x20 damage player receives from delve bosses
- normal -> x0.66 -> x0.5 -> x0.33 -> x0.2 -> x0.15 -> x0.1 -> x0.07 -> x0.05 damage player deals to delve bosses
- normal -> x1.5 -> x2 -> x3 -> x5 -> x7 -> x10 -> x15 -> x20 damage player receives from quest bosses
- normal -> x0.66 -> x0.5 -> x0.33 -> x0.2 -> x0.15 -> x0.1 -> x0.07 -> x0.05 damage player deals to quest bosses
Because quest and delve bosses have too low HP (so you often can't even see their mechanics) and need separate slider, it will also helps those players who don't want regular monsters to be stronger, but only quest or delve bosses.

Buff/Debuff system is already in game and will cost nothing to implement. Also i don't think that 6 more debuffs on character will drop performance in overland areas, especially that quest and delve debuffs could be applied only in specific areas.

No additional rewards or exp, because it will lead to exploits, feeling forced to do something and frustration. This sliders needed to adjust duration and lethality of the combat.
The only type of rewards i find appropriate are visual rewards and titles. For example, if player moved sliders to a certain degree in total, he receive new frame for his HP bar and some title

If player moved sliders to a maximum level, he receive another frame for his HP bar and another title

To avoid unwarranted show offs frames and titles can be obtained if player kill at least 50 enemies at this difficulty.

New players or those who enjoy game as it is now don't lose anything, they will just keep playing as it is. Farmers, chest runners, item hunters can also leave all as it is now, to not slow down their activities. But players who want more challenge in questing will be able to adjust difficulty according to their skill and role (Tank/Healer/DD). Tanks will increase damage taken, to feel more danger in fights, DDs will decrease their damage done to monsters and bosses to have the opportunity at last see their skills and mechanics

Increasing damage of mobs through sliders to one-two shot kill level can compensate slow and predictable mechanics, because you will need to watch them, watch for archers, block or evade arrows etc. And if you want this level of concentration were not very exhausting just keep HP of enemies through sliders on not high level, just enough for them to perform couple of their attacks.

In difficulty menu must be option to fast turn off and turn on previously set parameters, if player want to change activity.

This method of implementing difficulty levels for overland content has one flaw: some other player, with default settings of difficulty, can just run in and kill all in a blink of an eye. So i think quest bosses must be in separate instances and there must be an option in menu to make first run of the delve in separate instance as well.

Also i am for story or solo mode for dungeons(without set items drop), but this is topic of another thread.

LashanW

Kwoung wrote: »

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

So, has anyone defined or agreed upon what vOL is yet, or is it still an undefined thought that will never happen?

The exact definition is not needed. We are spitballing ideas to get traction on our perceived issue, we are not a guild or a community on discord or anything, we have nothing organized, though it is an interesting point, maybe we should be . It is for the devs to decide if it is worthy of hearing or not, and what constitutes change and doesn't. It appears that most of us on the vOL side are happy with optional toggle/difficulty meter for us. I would say the close second is at least challenge banners for bosses. I think even just one step in a direction towards us would be nice, and I could live with that, a show of good faith or something. But thats just me personally, others may feel differently

Well actually, a definition of what you are asking for is needed, otherwise the devs have no clue what you what.

Perhaps. But if devs wanted a clear definition they would ask for the specifics via mods here or via a survey. We don't need to explain implementation level details and justify our stance to other forum users as if they are the devs. I don't see the point of answering to people who make assumptions on what sort of information devs need. We give feedback about our current experience and some suggestions, it's up to the devs to figure out how to solve it.

People had issues for a long time with regards to the pains of obtaining and keeping gear with correct traits, and the devs came up with brilliant solutions such as transmutation, set reconstruction system and now curated drops (my hats off to the devs for this stuff btw, bloody amazing job ). Players didn't provide the solution details there, devs came up with it.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Is it the entire Overland or just the stories?

I will just answer this one (and it's my opinion, I'm not a representative of any form of group to say it's a general consensus ). I want difficulty of the stories to be increased (must be optional tho). Quite a bit of quests involve certain overland mobs (the ones in camps and abandoned towns, castles etc, basically overland area where the quest occur) So those mobs should be affected too. Quest bosses definitely need to be affected. I'd be very happy if the big bad guy of the zone has an instanced difficulty of the same level as a veteran base game dungeon boss (maybe HM scroll included)

I don't really care about the difficulty of world bosses, incursions (things like dolmens, geysers, harrowstorms etc.) as they are not directly involved in zone story quests. I just want to experience the stories with combat gameplay that actually matters. (30k HP enemies that do an attack once every 5 seconds and when that attack does like 100 damage, is not in anyway interesting to me)

Dark_Lord_Kuro

Franchise408 wrote: »

Dark_Lord_Kuro wrote: »

Can we get solo dungeon option in exchange? Would only be fair
Obviously green gear instead of blue just like vet overland would be purple instead of blue

Most dungeons can already be solo'd

Not by everyone

Maya_Nur

Vhozek wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

There are people who believe everything being the same level is not a problem.

I think part of the problem is people focus too much on the level scaling.

Leveling up still gives you skill points and attributes and access to new abilities, all of which are vital to making your character more powerful. Then there is the gear progression and then finally Champion Points. So there is a lot of growth opportunity that is still inherent in the system. It's not as stagnant as it might first appear to people.

So does my opinion not matter? Because it is incredibly stagnant to me and others.
It is DREADFUL.

Of course it matters. I just don't think the problem is the level scaling itself.

The problem is - while there is plenty of room for newer players to grow and progress under the current system - there isn't for experienced players who eventually just become way too powerful for the current standard. That's why we need two One Tamriels, a normal version and then a veteran one that scales at a higher level that better accommodates veteran players.

Well I do think the problem is level scaling itself because it's stagnant and boring.
I don't even care for max level stuff. I want my level up experience to be meaningful, long, and engaging.
Why would I care about high level overland? There's already world bosses and a ton of dungeons and trials to do. The story itself, while I'm leveling up, is not believable and it's not engaging. It's not fun.

Because someday you will maxed out your character's level anyway and the problem will have return — Overland would be easy to you. While levelling is extremely fast in ESO, it is better for us to focus on challenge at the higher level. I have already suggested here a "Much love edition" which includes smarter enemies placing from weak animals to deadly monsters depending on areas inside of location. It is not exactly the same, but let's be honest, the game is too huge right now to devs to do such overhaul. They wouldn't probably handle it even with upcoming content as far as every new "year-long-story" has lower quality than previous.

Faulgor

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Faulgor wrote: »

You could point out that there is a difference in expected difficulty between story and group content, but that just shows that the answer isn't that simple. Just like there are still people who want to experience group content in a story mode (which gets requested about as often), there are people who want to experience the story content at a higher difficulty.
Separating content difficulty by content type - hard instanced group dungeons vs easy story content - was a decision that ZOS made, and I think there is enough player demand for some cross-over there.

Honestly, I prefer the way Rich said things better because I do think it was more neutral in tone, but they communicated the same point. Which is that they had a lot of feedback that the game was too difficult back then, which was what lead them to separate the difficulty the way that they did. And that this separation of difficulty was a major factor in their success. And that they find this important to note, because to this day players mostly don't do the difficult content.

I do think there is more room for overlap though, as you phrase it. I think they could introduce difficulty in some feasible way to story content and likewise I think the game would benefit from a story mode for instanced group stuff. I think plenty of vet players would like to do the story quests if they were more challenging, and ones that already do them might like them better. And I think plenty of people are interested in the story part of the dungeons. I don't think it's necessarily the majority that would use such things, but that doesn't mean it's so little there's no point in doing literally anything at all.

Frankly I don't even think it's one group of players versus another. Even I would consider playing something like a story mode for dungeons (normals are reasonably easy to solo these days, but sometimes there are mechanics that make this impossible) and trials, because when you are in a group there is too much pressure to keep moving and not listen to NPC dialogue. With dungeons being worked into the year-long story, this is becoming increasingly important.
I might also use a higher difficulty only in certain areas, or for certain quests, or on certain characters. Giving players more options in this way would appear to benefit everyone, and it certainly seems in line with the spirit of the game.

Toxic_Hemlock

Vhozek wrote: »

Would be cool if world bosses got stronger the longer they remained alive. Perhaps they could transform into super elites as a pre-final stage and there's a notification somewhere showing a world boss is attempting to achieve Chim.
World bosses could either achieve Chim or a state of near Chim and that would take a TON of players to kill it, essentially creating open world raids.

I have nine characters that I play and craft with daily and many of them have map completion on many zones. That said I don't think any of them have a completed all the world bosses on any one zone, although I am sure I have a few scattered about all the maps. Why? Because I don't like the challenge and I only do them now if they are being fought by others. For them to get stronger would not bother me in the least actually unless they have a much larger agro. In the same vein as the wandering bosses they added, I will just give them a wider birth unless they are getting annulated by a zerg. In that case and then just poke em a bit and hope to get credit for the kill.

What I am saying is that they could make them get tougher if they think it is worth the dev time, it would not bother me much, I would just avoid them even more than I do now.

Sarannah

We already have smart enemies, have you ever tried killing an enemy slowly, or tried to replenish your resources. Enemies already constantly dodge heavy attacks, and constantly slow and stun players. Smarter enemies would only make them more annoying, even more so for weaker players. Enemies and overland is fine as it is.

Reading through this thread the only fair solution would be to introduce a food which reduces everything on a player to 50%. 50% less damage, 50% less health/magicka/stamina, 50% less resource regen, 50% less defenses, 50% less stats, etc. If you truly want a challenge, you use it, otherwise you don't. This would keep everything the same for everyone else, does not create multiple extra instances, keeps the rewards the same, and does not negatively affect anyone else in any way. ZOS could then use the statistics on those who use that food, to determine if a veteran overland should ever even become an option.

PS: ZOS could create different debuff foods, like a 75% debuff, a 50% debuff, and a 25% debuff.
PPS: This food should be usable in combination with other regular food/drinks, so players can debuff themselves while still trying their best to fight like that.

SimonThesis

Questing in Overland feels like I am one punch man! At CP 1200+ almost every mob we face has less hp than our dps numbers. They have made us more powerful every update for years but haven't changed overland. The power creep is real and they need to find a solution, right now many people have 125% crit damage and over 50% crit chance. As others have said we are just customers it's their job to figure out what to do. I understand they have to keep around the role players that only play an hour a week, but they also have to keep around the people that have had ESO+ for 6 years.

Chrysa1is

Get rid of scaling and have @ZOS just determine how strong certain enemies are in zones, then buff and nerf them accordingly if needed.

So you'll have some easy enemies in zones, and some harder ones in the same zones that players wouldn't dare challenge until they were stronger.

It'd be like going back in time before scaling was a thing. I think it'd be nice.

Arunei

The problem with trying to make the Overland content harder is how hard is hard enough? If it gets increased some there will always be people who claim it's still too easy, still too easy, still too easy, up until Overland mobs and bosses are as hard as Trial mobs and bosses. Even if it was a toggle or slider, there would be people complaining their HM isn't hard enough. It would be more and more resources sunk into a small group of players.

People who want a 'Vet' version of Overland also aren't considering just how much work that is. You're asking the devs to go through and make an entirely separate instance of every single zone, and the same problem applies: how hard is hard enough? Because you'll have the problem where some people who want harder content will go "This isn't enough!" while others will go "This isn't what I wanted it's too hard now!". This is why people keep saying if you want the harder content to go into dungeons or trials, because those are meant to be challenging on Vet (of course because difficulty is subjective a lot of people don't think those are hard, either).

Making a toggle or slider is also not something I think is as easy as people who toss it out every time this topic came up on the past believe it to be. How is the game supposed to handle if different people have their difficulty set to all manner of different levels? Does it get based off the lowest one? We don't have this problem now because the game scales players who are sub50 to CP160.

And another thing a lot of more experienced players don't consider is...no matter if the game difficulty was increased in some way, once you get used to that difficulty, it's going to seem too easy again, which leads back to how hard is hard enough. As your characters get stronger and you get more experience, things you thought were hard just won't be any more. That's just how life is, the more you do something the better you get at it.

StevieKingslayer

LashanW wrote: »

There's a very few people who suggested a difficulty increase in existing overland version (even as a last resort). Just want to point out that it is completely unacceptable not only due to taking choice away from people who currently have no issues with it. But also ping.

Ping is a major factor when doing combat in this game. If you live in same region as the server then you'd never see it. But as at least one other person has pointed out, high ping can absolutely butcher even basic combat in this game.

I play from Asia and my ping is ~200ms on good days. At this ping PvE is absolutely ok, I've done several trifectas (both dungeon and trial) with this ping. But the game become more and more unplayable when ping goes above 300. There are some parts of the year when ping goes ballistic (500+) for me. I can't even complete a simple normal dungeon anymore at that ping, because I no longer have proper control over my character. Can't even barswap properly, never mind rotations. Every part of the game feels like prime time Cyrodiil at that ping.

So when ping is higher, even overland can get very difficult to manage regardless of how skilled you are. So any difficulty change must remain optional.

You are 100% correct on your ping comment. I too suffer from high ping, 370 sitting in my capital city, 500 in PVP. I still want this unfortunately. I have a higher tolerance for lag tho so but it is a valid point to bring up

Kwoung wrote: »

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

So, has anyone defined or agreed upon what vOL is yet, or is it still an undefined thought that will never happen?

The exact definition is not needed. We are spitballing ideas to get traction on our perceived issue, we are not a guild or a community on discord or anything, we have nothing organized, though it is an interesting point, maybe we should be . It is for the devs to decide if it is worthy of hearing or not, and what constitutes change and doesn't. It appears that most of us on the vOL side are happy with optional toggle/difficulty meter for us. I would say the close second is at least challenge banners for bosses. I think even just one step in a direction towards us would be nice, and I could live with that, a show of good faith or something. But thats just me personally, others may feel differently

Well actually, a definition of what you are asking for is needed, otherwise the devs have no clue what you what.

Yes, That is why underneath your comment you will find my comment in exact response to yours. You're asking a group of players who dont know each other at all apart from this thread to come together and have the same consensus. That isnt gonna happen, we've only just started being taken seriously and being allowed a platform to talk about it, it's gonna take time - Just like we accept it would take ZOS time to implent anything that has been spitballed here if they chose to do so.

---

On an aside, as nice as the food debuff idea is, it would not work with overland levels being as they are, the mobs around me will still be oneshot by a node farmer and the wb's will still die when the zerg rolls over em on their zone stomps. But it is a nice idea.

Sylvermynx

LashanW wrote: »

There's a very few people who suggested a difficulty increase in existing overland version (even as a last resort). Just want to point out that it is completely unacceptable not only due to taking choice away from people who currently have no issues with it. But also ping.

Ping is a major factor when doing combat in this game. If you live in same region as the server then you'd never see it. But as at least one other person has pointed out, high ping can absolutely butcher even basic combat in this game.

I play from Asia and my ping is ~200ms on good days. At this ping PvE is absolutely ok, I've done several trifectas (both dungeon and trial) with this ping. But the game become more and more unplayable when ping goes above 300. There are some parts of the year when ping goes ballistic (500+) for me. I can't even complete a simple normal dungeon anymore at that ping, because I no longer have proper control over my character. Can't even barswap properly, never mind rotations. Every part of the game feels like prime time Cyrodiil at that ping.

So when ping is higher, even overland can get very difficult to manage regardless of how skilled you are. So any difficulty change must remain optional.

As I stated somewhere (don't know which thread now) high ping IS part of my problem with combat. Most days my ping averages around 750ms - satellite is the only connection available to me (other than dial-up); I actually live in the US desert southwest, only 40 miles from "real broadband", but no company is interested in bringing "real broadband" to a tiny town with less than 200 full time residents. In fact, my cell phone doesn't work at my house, nor does husband get "real tv" - his tv is satellite as well.

Of course, as I also said, I just really am not impressed with having to kill my way through a game - I'd really like to have other methods of gaining experience, but by now combat is the standard way games reward XP and I don't see that changing any time in the future.

As you point out - no barswapping or reasonable rotations for me; add to that the fact that I'm nearly 74 and my reflexes are not as good as they were even 10 years ago, and you'll understand why overland as it is now is sometimes a huge issue for me. I don't die as often as I did the first year or so I played, but it's still often enough that I grit my teeth and roll my eyes....

StevieKingslayer

SilverBride wrote: »

It's a Catch-22.

IF there is an optional veteran overland and many players use it, it will divide the playerbase.
IF there is an optional veteran overland and few players use it, the cost to develop and maintain it is now wasted.

Neither of these situations is desirable.
(The identical instances currently present in the megaservers for accommodating large amounts of players are not the same thing as a completely separate server with every mob being more difficult and having different mechanics, which is exactly what veteran overland would be.)

The issue isn't really with overland anyway. It's with how some players perceive overland. So the only reasonable solution would address this.

These are just a few suggestions that would benefit these players without negatively affecting anyone else:

• Debuff food for general overland
• Optional veteran story bosses
• A toggle to hide quest markers

I get what your saying here, I really do. I personally see it as...well...You know how in primetime there is different instances of the same zone? Well, like that. No new server, No nothing like that. You're just in the other version of reapers march or something. That is already a thing at primetime.

EDIT: I realize my sleep deprived mind read your comment a little wrongly, so editing to add in that in my proposed example, the veteran instance would be capped at a certain amount of players to help with the server capacity and ensure it doesn't put any extra strain on the already desperately needing to be replaced servers - Instead of just adding in a whole new server or anything like that. Then again I accept that none of us are programmers for zos, or technician experts for them, so if they could provide more insight into this, like a clear "no, we actually cant physically do this, then that would put alot of this to bed, not "we wont do it because people don't like it"

For 95% of my playtime (1pm-4am NZD. Yes, I have zero life ) I am put in different instances from my group constantly, and yes, I am grouped up doing various things all day. That means even in the 'dead' hours of the game, when the majority of NA is asleep or at work, Im still in a different instance from all my friends, some of us end up in 3 different instances. So I personally don't believe it will divide the playerbase as much as everyone thinks. We already have multi zone instances dividing us, splitting the optional vets into one, would allow more non vets together as well to group up and help each other for content at a speed they are also comfortable with.

Difference would be; Just make one the veteran zone, all the rest are regular instances, that shoves all of us vets into one place, and allows all the non vet's a little more space with other no vetters rather than some zone only having like 10 people in it and being active (it is a thing). If a player in your group attempts to jump to you they get a warning: "THIS PLAYER IS IN A VETERAN INSTANCE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED?" that way it would also stop you from accidently being placed in a veteran zone if you do not wish it. There would be no way for you to accidently stumble into it. If you chose to port out to a normal zone, you get the message "YOU ARE LEAVING A VETERAN ZONE" so you are aware it has worked and you are back where you wish to be.

This solution does not mean adding a new server, it means using an existing instance that is now locked into place as a veteran version. Hell they could even market it with wandering bosses or add in an extra dungeon or two, I'd pay for it. I would suggest a veteran questline (the big bad from that land had one last hurrah sort of thing) but I think that's unfair because it would lock normal overland people out, so no thankyou.

I personally, dont want any change to the dropped sets in these lands, they would stay the same. I personally dont want any extra reward. At most (if they did add it as incentive) maybe an achievement for killing the veteran version of a boss, maybe like, idk 200 gold, basically the extra same loot table. Like I actually don't care about the rewards at all unfortunately; Its just the story and an elevated level of fun for me. For example; I have multiple max level characters, The majority of them (legit, 80%) of them have not done a single quest apart from dungeon quests and starting the main storyline, because I didn't want to be bored going thru the lands one shotting (Yes, I recognize this is because I grinded these toons, Because I needed them for group comp, that doesn't mean I don't want to quest on them - and people unfortunately just wont wait for you to quest level a toon to do a raid, that doesn't mean I don't care about story, I care about story alot.)

Potentially, for those worried about the scaling and us getting bored after a while, they could idk, go thru a revamp once every 3 years. Give people the time to finish the content in veteran, gives them the time to slowly work on it, gives the normal vetters the time to finally decide if they want to give it a go, and finish it if they desire. We arent asking for any of this overnight, we understand its a big decision, and a big undertaking and would require alot of logistics work and time.

I hope maybe that helped explain my personal position a little bit better, and my feelings on the matter, it is very late. Apologies for the long reply. I ramble.



[Edited to add something, edited part in bolded.]

Toxic_Hemlock

SimonThesis wrote: »

Questing in Overland feels like I am one punch man! At CP 1200+ almost every mob we face has less hp than our dps numbers. They have made us more powerful every update for years but haven't changed overland. The power creep is real and they need to find a solution, right now many people have 125% crit damage and over 50% crit chance. As others have said we are just customers it's their job to figure out what to do. I understand they have to keep around the role players that only play an hour a week, but they also have to keep around the people that have had ESO+ for 6 years.

Maybe we are just overthinking it here. The devs could easily add an option to the overland to zero out all the CP (except maybe crafting). As they do this for cyrodiil now I don't think it would require much dev work. Even if the fights would still be easy to some, you would definitely feel the difference without the warfare buffs.

Maybe all that is needed is the ability to revert yourself voluntarily to a fresh lvl 50. It would still cause problems with others coming along and destroying your targets, but at least it would not require much dev time IMO.

Lord_Hev

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

On an aside, as nice as the food debuff idea is, it would not work with overland levels being as they are, the mobs around me will still be oneshot by a node farmer and the wb's will still die when the zerg rolls over em on their zone stomps. But it is a nice idea.

Yep, this is the singular biggest issue with the "food debuff" idea. It's not even a "throwing the bone" to us. It only works in an unrealistic vacuum of a viewpoint.

SilverBride

Toxic_Hemlock wrote: »

Maybe all that is needed is the ability to revert yourself voluntarily to a fresh lvl 50. It would still cause problems with others coming along and destroying your targets, but at least it would not require much dev time IMO.

That is not an overland difficulty issue. When you are playing a game that multiple others are playing at the same time you will run into other players, and sometimes they will engage the same mob you are. The only way to avoid ever interacting with others this way would be to create a completely solo instanced overland and turn ESO into a single player game.

Toxic_Hemlock

SilverBride wrote: »

Toxic_Hemlock wrote: »

Maybe all that is needed is the ability to revert yourself voluntarily to a fresh lvl 50. It would still cause problems with others coming along and destroying your targets, but at least it would not require much dev time IMO.

That is not an overland difficulty issue. When you are playing a game that multiple others are playing at the same time you will run into other players, and sometimes they will engage the same mob you are. The only way to avoid ever interacting with others this way would be to create a completely solo instanced overland and turn ESO into a single player game.

Well there is another way, but I am sure it would be as popular as a rocking chair in a room full of long tail cats. That is to limit the amount of damage your character (and others) can do while overland. This would totally nullify builds and make potions useless, but other than a total rework of the current system I cannot see how we will make everyone happy here.

As it will always be though in a game that caters to a large population. Opinions are like belly buttons as everyone has one. I am sure dark souls was the best thing ever to many playing ESO now, but to to me that game was an automatic skip.

Edit:clarity

ixthUA

Now that we have armory, veteran experts have no excuse not to try
- no companion
- no cp
- solo self found tank gear
overland.
I wonder how easy world bosses will be.

Faulgor

SilverBride wrote: »

Toxic_Hemlock wrote: »

Maybe all that is needed is the ability to revert yourself voluntarily to a fresh lvl 50. It would still cause problems with others coming along and destroying your targets, but at least it would not require much dev time IMO.

That is not an overland difficulty issue. When you are playing a game that multiple others are playing at the same time you will run into other players, and sometimes they will engage the same mob you are. The only way to avoid ever interacting with others this way would be to create a completely solo instanced overland and turn ESO into a single player game.

Outside of new content and world bosses/events, this is also a surprisingly rare occurence to me, I must say (PC EU). Most of the time, people are either respectul because they are used to 'no killsteal' rules from other MMOs, or they are just happy someone keeps mobs busy while they can go their way uninterrupted.

On the other hand, at delve, public dungeon and even world bosses, I have often struggled to do just enough damage to get tagged for loot, but not so much that the boss dies too fast and other people don't have a chance to get rewarded. Depending on crits and procs, that is not always in my control, especially when someone else arrives too late. I always try to be helpful, but with damage as it is that is sometimes a difficult needle to thread.

Dark_Lord_Kuro

Mayrael wrote: »

Toxic_Hemlock wrote: »

Mayrael wrote: »

Background:

So, from One Tamriel there is a noticeable drastic decrease in overland difficulty due to the fact that it was necessary to bring all locations down to a common denominator. Unfortunately this has led to a situation where players, very quickly outgrow overland content. It's not a problem for people who play occasionally, but for every player who tries to develop their skills, it quickly leads to a situation where the game simply becomes boring.

Personally, I am a player who has helped new players endless times by creating their equipment etc. Most of them (about 70% by my rough estimation) stopped playing after 2 weeks, noticing that, unfortunately, the moment they bounce back a little, the quests start to drastically bore them.

I myself created 6 characters for One Tamriel, on which I passed zone after zone doing all the quests, because it was addictive for me. Learning to play a new character was a challenge for me. Now, unfortunately, going through the DLC almost causes me physical pain.

Advantages of increasing difficulty:

How do I resolve this situation? Of course, most of us will probably agree that by "more difficult" content we don't mean enemies with 10x more HP, because that would simply be prolonging the agony.

What we really need is to improve the AI of NPCs, increase the frequency of their attacks and their strength, so that our computer enemies pose a real threat, to take full advantage of our defensive capabilities such as roll dodge, block, heals, shields, leaving the "red circle" etc. etc. Such a solution has additional benefits, in the form of a kind of forced training for new players, who incidentally learn the basic rules of combat and more difficult content such as dungeons or trials.

More options = more satisfied players.

Disatvantages:

Unfortunately, not everyone is able to improve their skills for various reasons, and there is no shame in that. Simply raising the difficulty of an overland might create a barrier for them, and you need to make sure you don't exclude them, which is really the only valid argument against raising the difficulty in general.

On the other hand, I don't think that being lazy and saying "I want easier content because I don't want to bother" is any reason not to increase the game difficulty.

Proposed solution:
Step 1: Increase NPCs AI (or at least enrich their range of moves and increase the frequency of their attacks) and at the same time increase their damage (maybe introduce the option of critical hits from NPCs - which would increase the attractiveness of traits, sets and CPs against such damage also in PvE).

Step 2 - add optional buff, increasing our stats after each of our death in overland lasting from half to full hour (stacks up to say 5 times with cool down of 1 minute between deaths). In this way, the difficulty level will automatically adjust to the player and their level of proficiency, while making sure that every now and then they face a challenge with a higher difficulty level.

This solution has a number of benefits:
1. It works automatically without the new player having to think about how to adjust the difficulty level.
2. It doesn't require a division into vet overland and regular overland.
3. It doesn't argue with the idea introduced by One Tamriel that a new player and an experienced player can play together. On the contrary, it supports it because it allows both to have fun.
4. It does not segregate rewards by difficulty level.
5. Everyone, even the weakest player, will be able to complete quests without having to worry about whether they can handle them.
6. Allows players who are looking for a challenge to play at a higher difficulty.
7. Through buffs being temporary it encourages new players to work on their skills and equipment, because it shows them that they are not as weak as they thought and that both their skills and their character is developing - which is one of the core aspects of RPG games afterall.

Edit: some typos.

No thanks on the AI improvements and increased damage, I like having fun for the sake of having fun. I DON'T want to have to plan 4 steps ahead of an AI just to cater to those that want to determine what "fun" should be.

Also no thanks on the optional buff. I don't want to have to die 5 times just so the overland becomes what it currently is to me. Dying is something the hero should never do and having to die over and over again to "become" heroic is just not what would interest me in the least!

If you want to introduce a potion that makes all of the above happen, but only to the drinker, than cool I am down with that as it won't hamper my fun in any way.

Also the quote:

"On the other hand, I don't think that being lazy and saying "I want easier content because I don't want to bother" is any reason not to increase the game difficulty."

Assumes you know my reasons for wanting to enjoy the game as it is, and as I don't tell the veteran players to reduce your challenge so I enjoy it more (as I don't do any vet content) I would thank you to leave my enjoyment alone.

Edit: I am starting to think I am alone in my desire here, and if that is indeed true I wish all of those in favor of a non-optional vet overland good luck. I won't be here to see it, but I'm sure someone younger will take my place.

I only hope you all stay young because when you get older someone will inevitably want to take your fun away too.

So basically your fun is more important than someone's fun? And just because you don't like some idea (heroes don't die) you want limit others from having fun? That idea doesn't limit your fun, you will still be able to do what you do or even more, you will learn something new, but just because you don't like some minor changes, you want to ruin fun for thousands of other people? You don't even try to understand the other side and you don't want to find a solution that would allow everyone to have fun, you just care about your self and preserving current status quo. This is not the way to solve a problem.

But that change would ruin the fun of another thousond player by simply being implemented

Sarannah

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

I realize my sleep deprived mind read your comment a little wrongly, so editing to add in that in my proposed example, the veteran instance would be capped at a certain amount of players to help with the server capacity and ensure it doesn't put any extra strain on the already desperately needing to be replaced servers - Instead of just adding in a whole new server or anything like that. Then again I accept that none of us are programmers for zos, or technician experts for them, so if they could provide more insight into this, like a clear "no, we actually cant physically do this, then that would put alot of this to bed, not "we wont do it because people don't like it"

Just had to respond to this, as this idea would grant those in the overland veteran instance(s) a massive bonus to farming resources and mobs. Both the seperate instance part, and the capped players part. That should never ever happen!

SilverBride

Faulgor wrote: »

Most of the time, people are either respectul because they are used to 'no killsteal' rules from other MMOs, or they are just happy someone keeps mobs busy while they can go their way uninterrupted.

Unwritten "no killsteal" rules are an antiquated concept in MMO's today. I remember in WoW when only the first player to tag a mob could even attack it. This caused a lot of conflict with players who were all trying to attack the same quest mob as you can imagine. Now it's like it is here, where everyone targeting the mob is able to and gets quest credit for it.

The problem some find with this, that it makes the mob die faster and ruins their immersion, will only be worse in a veteran overland where those who are "stealing" your kill are also high CP veteran geared experienced players.

Ravensilver

SilverBride wrote: »

Unwritten "no killsteal" rules are an antiquated concept in MMO's today. I remember in WoW when only the first player to tag a mob could even attack it. This caused a lot of conflict with players who were all trying to attack the same quest mob as you can imagine. Now it's like it is here, where everyone targeting the mob is able to and gets quest credit for it.

Not quite. It's still faction locked. So if someone from the Horde tags a mob, then an Alliance player won't be able to either loot it or get credit for the kill. Which is a real PITA, to be honest, and frustrates me without end... (which is one of the reasons why I'm not playing WoW anymore).

SilverBride

Ravensilver wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Unwritten "no killsteal" rules are an antiquated concept in MMO's today. I remember in WoW when only the first player to tag a mob could even attack it. This caused a lot of conflict with players who were all trying to attack the same quest mob as you can imagine. Now it's like it is here, where everyone targeting the mob is able to and gets quest credit for it.

Not quite. It's still faction locked. So if someone from the Horde tags a mob, then an Alliance player won't be able to either loot it or get credit for the kill. Which is a real PITA, to be honest, and frustrates me without end... (which is one of the reasons why I'm not playing WoW anymore).

That is true, but is a situation that won't come up in ESO.

Dark_Lord_Kuro

Franchise408 wrote: »

Hallothiel wrote: »

Comparing a single player rpg with an MMO rpg is no a valid comparison.

Also, didn’t Skyrim have a choice as to difficulty (as most SINGLE PLAYER games do)? And iirc, once you got to a certain level, the game was ‘easy’ as your gear & skills were op?

Because I refuse to play content that feels like active punishment to me, which is what the mind numbingly easy overland is. It is punishment for me to endure.

But for a lot of people it is not ‘mind numbingly easy’. And that is the crux - apparently that’s the majority (or so Rich has said).

K, how about MMO to MMO?

(Also, funny you mention Skyrim having a *choice* for difficulty - which is exactly what is being asked for, and being asked to be done in a way that already exists within the game as it currently stands, so it is clearly possible to pull off despite not being a single player title

Although to be perfectly honest, at this point I would far prefer to see a forced increase in difficulty than to see no change at all.)

EverQuest is still raking in millions of dollars a year, and was the king of MMO's for quite a long time, until WoW came and took the throne. EverQuest is also the epitome of a challenge in overland. Considering the fact that EverQuest has been running for over 20 years now, and even in declined #'s is still going strong, opening new servers, and making millions of dollars a year in profit (even with free emulator servers up and running - endorsed by Daybreak - poaching some of the playerbase from the official live servers), I'd say that challenging overland certainly isn't a detriment what-so-ever to online games.

How about other MMO's like SWG which literally died because of the streamlining and removal of challenge from the game?

I can't speak to WoW, as I've never really been much of a player there, but from my understanding, WoW has always been more challenging than ESO as well.

Honestly, ESO is probably the least difficult MMO I have ever played, but it is far from the most successful MMO ever or that I have ever played, so I don't think that difficulty is an accurate measurement to it's success.

The game isn't successful because of lack of difficulty. The difficulty in the game is largely the same as it was pre-One Tamriel. The overland of this game has never been challenging or difficult. There's a lot of misremembering and revisionist history about the difficulty of the game 7 years ago, when really what changed wasn't the difficulty, it was the ease of access to group with other players, the removal of the forced subscription, and the addition of TES-style gameplay mechanics. The game didn't struggle early because it was too hard, and the game isn't a success now because it's too easy. I honestly don't care what Rich says, because I don't hold it as a credible response. It's a cop-out response that devs give when they don't want to or haven't yet committed to making specific changes.

Sure, i misremember dying over and over again against a vet1 delve boss

spartaxoxo

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

---

On an aside, as nice as the food debuff idea is, it would not work with overland levels being as they are, the mobs around me will still be oneshot by a node farmer and the wb's will still die when the zerg rolls over em on their zone stomps. But it is a nice idea.

Varying levels of strength of people around you is already part of every mmo no matter the tuning. Every day low levels can be doing some quest and a high level can roll in and trivialize what they were doing, as is. In other games, it's also the case that stronger players can come kill somehting you're working on. Heck, they can even roll in and steal the kill in some of them.

The same thing is also already true of zerging, even dragons are trivialized during dragon slaying events when there are a bunch of people zerg it down. And those things are more difficult than pretty much anyone wants a skeever.

That wouldn't be something you'd experiencing all or even most of the time, because questing is largely something you're doing by yourself or with only a couple of people around. The game already works to ensure that not too many people are in the same instance and not too few, depending on how many playing at time.

This would happen no matter the solution because it's a part of playing an MMO. This is already happening in this mmo ans every mmo. This is not a single player game.

The only difference between you being the strong player coming and some new player waiting a second for you to clear out, and the new player being the strong player and you waiting a second for them to clear out is perception. That's it. Some of y'all just don't want to see someone not playing hard mode when you're playing hard mode.

Araxyte

Reviewing the comments in this thread, it seems that the vast majority are for an optional vet overland. It seems to be the same few people stating otherwise. I believe in zos's ability to create an optional veteran overland that's fair and makes everyone happy. Thank you everyone for reinforcing the idea.

Amottica

SimonThesis wrote: »

We're not asking for vet level mechanics but something other than just sitting there and dieing. Since one tamriel the mobs already scale to your level. It would be no different than a Cp2500 running around tagging mobs and running into a lvl 10.

@SimonThesis

You may not be asking for vet-level mechanics but some are. Some feel that if they are not risking the chance they will die it is not challenging.

What one person finds challenging another finds far too easy and a third think it is far too much. The various threads I have read in these forums make this clear. I expect Zenimax is aware of this conundrum

FlopsyPrince

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

First, thanks to @ZOS_Kevin for officially providing us with this thread where we can share the feedback. But I would like to remind the players that this is precisely the feedback thread, where we just speak in detail about our impressions, and do not argue with each other. Past threads were closed because players were actively arguing with each other. I would not want this to happen again. Especially in the official feedback thread. Thanks!
I see how much has been said on this topic on both sides. But I really have something to say. I'll just try to be original and share a few of my thoughts that I haven't seen in this thread.

This game is not like the classic The Elder Scrolls series game. When ESO realise, it received a lot of unfair critic. One of the points of such unfair critics was that this is not Skyrim online. However, the further Skyrim went into history, the better the public looked at ESO. However, ZoS touts ESO as a classic in the series that will give us that Morrowind / Oblivion / Skyrim experience. Although it makes no sense to explain for a long time why you should not compare an online project with a solo game, I still say that exploration, questing, storytelling, looting, combat, leveling in any classic RPG work together, creating a deep immersion experience for the players. But in ESO, each gameplay element exists separately:

- There is no exploration in ESO. Remember how you accidentally discovered caves or ancestral tombs, where we could find something interesting, such as a unique item or quest. How dragon claws were found from an unknown nordic tomb. ESO has simple POI compliments and nothing more.

- No looting. We are not happy with a new sword found in a chest or 10 gold coins dropped from a robber. ESO has a farming.

- And questing is more like a visual novel than an RPG questing.

But this is an MMO, right? No one expects that mmo will give us the same experience as a classic RPG. But the problem is that this game is not similar to either the classic RPG or the classic MMO. As many have already said that questing is like a visual novel, where we run from marker to marker, just to continue the story. It’s even more like reading comics for me, because I don’t feel like I’m involved in the story at all.
In an interview, Rich Lambert was asked what would he change in the game in the very early stages of development? And he replied that he would try to make this game more like the Elder Scrolls than an MMO. And looking at Fallout76, I understand why. Fallot76 looks like Betheda`s Fallout, plays like Bethesda`s Fallout, feels like Betheda`s Fallout, smells like Betheda`s Fallout. ESO feels, looks and plays like an MMO. It's not bad for itself. But i also expect something different from the game, which is mmo.

Who are casual players really? No, these are not the players who play only questing and housing, and are afraid of any challenge. No. These are the players involved in the game as well as the powerplayers. And I love them, really! But Rich once said that the average play time for the average ESO player is only six weeks. I would be surprised, but I often hear game analysts say that only a small part of players, who buying games, complete them to the end. And it is true. Open Steam, open any popular and hyped game of the last years, and look at the percentage of players who received achievements for completing the game? What percentage of players also received other different achievements besides the achievements for completing the first stages of the game? Usually the value does not exceed 15-20%. I don't know for sure, but it seems like on consoles there is an opportunity to see what percentage of players received certain achievements. I remember how this information just surprised me at first. I thought how could this be true? Buy a game and do almost nothing there? How? But I was convinced of this later.
Now, let's forget about the difficulty of mobs for a while, okay? Let's imagine that this is not the main topic, then:

- If the main problem for Craglorn was the difficulty of mobs and bosses, then why did ZoS abandon the concept of Adventure Zones entirely? After all, ZoS could continue to develop locations with a lot of content, many different activities, several mini dungeons like the Shada`s Tear or Skyrich?

- If overland content is for storytelling, then why did ZoS abandon the concept of long lines of side quests? Remember of the quests in Morrowind about Sun-in-Shadows or Veya Releth. These are beautiful long stories that remain in the memory. But why did ZoS give up on this? Why ZoS returned to the concept of a large number of short quests? Why isn't this already in Clockwork? Did the players hate these quests? It seems not, I have only met good reviews.

As you can see, the reason is far from being difficult. The vast majority of players have never completed most of the content. And not because it is difficult. It's just that the "life cycle" of such a player is very short. Such a player will buy a game or dlc, play a little, maybe pay some extra money, and then leave. And maybe, maybe it will return to q4 dlc. Yes, the concept of "year story", which has been criticized a lot lately, is based on this. That is why we do not get satisfaction by completing the main quest in the chapter, when we are shown how the bigboss simply leaves us. And then we have to wait for him for another six months. Aslo, this is not a problem for me. I'm fine with a year-long story. I think the problem is with the quality of the writing, not the concept. But that's a different topic.
Also, in 2016, it seems Matt Firor said in an interview that the biggest peaks in population occur with the release of new dlc, mainly due to returning players. There is also every reason to believe that it is for this purpose that events are held too often in the game. I also think that the delayed release of new motives in each new chapter and dlc is an attempt to keep the population in new content.
And ZoS just optimized the development. Why create a content-rich overland if most of the players just never see it? Of course, by reducing the amount of content per location and making it trivial, ZoS increased the completion rate. But it only hurt the content. So it turns out that overland is content for players who play very little and are not involved. Quests are not just trivial. They are short. 20 minutes each. I completed the entire Blackwood area in four evenings. I have already completed all the side quests in Deadlands in one evening. But I'm a big fan of TES and I carefully read every dialogue, every note and book I find. I'm not saying we need more quests. No. It's just that after I complete all the quests, the location becomes useless to me. Literally tomorrow, maybe the day after tomorrow, I will complete Deadlands and never return there. Daily quests? Zerging bosses and running around delves is hardly fun. I'd rather buy the motives later. I only get achievements when I get bored.
So I think the problem of overland is far from just only difficulty. ZoS as a whole approaches overland creation too sparingly and it is felt after two or three completed locations. I am not going to judge whether ZoS could really create content that could keep different types of players for months, or whether this approach to attracting fickle casual players is just a necessary measure. I do not know.

Times before One Tamriel. One of the biggest things that surprises me about these threads is that some players say there was once a veteran overland in the game. Even Rich Lambert said that. And this is ... very ... strange. I have been playing since November 2014 and I remember those times very well. And I say that there has never been a real difficult overland in eso. It does not matter at all what level you have, 10lvl or 10 vet. rank, all mobs on your level/rank have always had the same difficulty. You just had to meet the level requirement, but no more. Therefore, the statement that eso became more popular because the difficulty was nerfed is highly doubtful. One Tamriel did a lot of the right things, it really is. But there was never a difficult overland in the game, there was just compulsory leveling. Why was the vanilla eso a failure? Well, this is a separate topic, but there are a lot of reasons. For me personally, this game was saved by the release of veteran dungeons and new, better quality dlc. Only Craglorn was truly a veteran zone. I won't say why the players didn't like Craglorn then, other players have talked about it a lot earlier. But yeah, having to group up for quests annoyed me too. I would like to say about Imperial City. There are many examples where the pvp / pve concept is perfectly implemented. However, due to some bad design decisions, IC is dead. So is Craglorn. There are many mmo where there is an interesting overland and where difficulties work well. For what reason this just cannot exist in eso, I do not understand.

Look at the concept of the Adventure Zone again. For me personally, this is the most ideal option. Although, I will be glad to any movement towards to more difficult overland content. I think that the best solution would be to release new locations, with the option to switch modes like in dung/trials. Fewer mobs, but more dangerous. Remove delves. Make four or five dungeons like Shada's Tear or Skyreach with daily quests. We need more different activities. And the main thing, of course, is a switch so that players who only want to go through quests could do it calmly. But even such players would have more to do in this type of overland.
Do two or three side questlines, like in Vvardenfell, 3-4 quests each. Instead of two dozen short quests, which are then hard to remember.

Rewards? I don't see anything wrong with expecting a balance between effort and reward in video games. We already have monster helmets, perfect sets, SS and RG mounts, guaranteed motif drops. It can even be just achievements. But suppose it could be some special sets. Or, for example, cosmetic rewards that would be collected from 100 shards. In veteran mode, more shards would simply be dropped. In general, I do not think that this is a desperate situation and that no balance can be found here.

But this is my personal opinion. Anyway, I will support any other solution for a more amusing overland.

A few more thoughts:

- All players who love TES want to play overland. We want to return to these beautiful locations, do tasks and walk there. But we do not want this pastime to feel like something useless and trivial.

- Yes, quests really only complete once. But the fact that they are completed by the players does not mean that it was a pleasant experience for them. We want questing to be a fun experience for us.

- Challenging combat isn't the only way to make overland and questing more fun.

- Plucking the Crow was a good experience for me. The boss had some pretty basic mechanics, but they made me move and heal. I was pleased.

- I'm waiting for fewer people in Deadlands to try to fight the walking bosses.

- I would not go back to old zones and replay old quests just because the mobs there have become more hardy. I think it's worth focusing on new content.

- Although the idea of giving players the opportunity to replay zones again seems very good to me.

- I liked the difficulty slider in Skyrim. At the highest difficulty, the mobs did not have a lot of hp. But they did a lot of damage. This made the fight not long, but risky and fun.

-Why are we doing more difficult content? Because we want to be distracted. To turn my attention away from problems into play. But we cannot do this because the process is so easy an lame that we do not need to concentrate and we cannot focus on the game. When I play eso overland or questing, I turn on YouTube, think about my life, because I cannot immerse myself in the game. Also, many people go to the gym to relax and unwind. Strange isn't it?

Thanks! I feel heard.

Very long post with some points you surely support.

That said, you are looking for the "new" experience and you will never get that playing something more than once, or even playing something others talk about a lot. Finding that new cave wouldn't happen if you watched a video that talked about it!

We live in a very different world now, and wanting to go back to the future will not work.

And I can't see one "difficult content" example that would not be "group content" for many/most. I grew up (in MMOs, not life) with post-Cata WoW and I never did want really hard content, but the level zones is quite familiar. It made many zones extraneous once I leveled past them. Opening up the whole game to everyone makes a lot of sense and does keep me engaged.

They really need to fix many things long before playing around with the difficulty of overland content. Some bug fixes have been needed for years. Making overland content scale well, past just making the numbers bigger, would be a huge effort.