Overland Content Feedback Thread

colossalvoids

disky wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

On solutions part I've been told straight by one of the developers that they're not interested in our solutions, they need to know our "pain points" that were available since day one of this thread. The ball is on their side for years, pretty sure all the data needed was researched years ago and decisions were made, for better or worse for us. We're just discussing things we want between ourselves, it's not like if majority of people in this thread be it us or people hating any semblance of change will council and decide what's appropriate solution for us and them it would be brought into life.

Then, respectfully, why are you attempting to provide a solution? If you're so convinced of the futility of being here, why are you here? If we're all just pissing into the wind, why even show up?

I'm here because I believe that discussing something sensible will give the developers impetus to at least consider a real solution, which is why I'm not shooting for the moon with my proposal. I don't believe they'll do exactly what I want them to do, but I am trying my best to give them feedback that they can actually work with. That's why I'm opposing your ideas, because they don't seem like something that's possible or desirable for the dev team.

I'm not providing a solution anymore, I surely did years before. Chimed in yet again here seeing how people ganged up against a person who's idea was different to what couple of people recently had agreed upon e.g. sliders. It's delusional saying it's an ultimate solution that would work for everyone, it's indeed a "capitulation" as they've originally said, people are afraid of sounding their different opinions here which might be attacked (not challenged, but actually attacked) right away by couple users just because those are probably less safe for them. If people want to discuss when they want it's completely fine here, it's a venting thread for some of us at this point.

Yet again, no thread-council or a consensus between couple of people in this forum would help you convince the devs that it's THE solution, so all this attempts to drive off new posters or people who sounding different things would help you achieving it.

disky

Theist_VII wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

Maybe take smaller bites?

That's exactly what I'm trying to do, just not in the way you want.

I had to give you an awesome there for missing the entire point in incredible fashion.

It’s one thing to say, “I don’t want a change because I believe it will not fix the problem” and an entirely different thing to make presumptions about work load and the depths that the company we’re funding are capable of reaching for us the consumer.

This game is only successful when the developers have a symbiotic relationship with us, so it’s extremely naive to assume that a company that has already done the “impossible” twice with One Tamriel and then Scribing, at two all-time-lows, couldn’t pull a hat trick, as the last addition wasn’t enough to save the declining product.

I understood what you were trying to say, I just didn't provide a substantive response because I didn't want to keep talking to you. You're welcome to take your Awesome back.

I didn't buy Gold Road because I'm not supporting the game monetarily until we see substantive change for overland, so I don't know much about scribing, and I've only been playing seriously for a few years without having any knowledge of or interest in the spellcraft issue. However, I do know that as with One Tamriel, scribing is a feature which everyone can benefit from equally. It's not something borne of a large amount of risky, costly dev-hours that only a portion of players will be able to enjoy, and therefore it makes sense to implement, especially as its universal appeal would drive sales of Gold Road.

A vet overland instance has none of that same charm. I would absolutely use it and probably have a great time, but most people wouldn't, and they would be left wondering why ZOS wasted all their effort on it when they don't see any benefit from it. It sounds like you're aware of how the forums tend to be, so I'm sure you can understand the backlash it would certainly cause.

A simple solution is best, for all of the reasons I've already listed over and over. As cool as it would be to have what you want, it's just not feasible, for all of the reasons I've already listed over and over. This is my opinion.

disky

colossalvoids wrote: »

disky wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

On solutions part I've been told straight by one of the developers that they're not interested in our solutions, they need to know our "pain points" that were available since day one of this thread. The ball is on their side for years, pretty sure all the data needed was researched years ago and decisions were made, for better or worse for us. We're just discussing things we want between ourselves, it's not like if majority of people in this thread be it us or people hating any semblance of change will council and decide what's appropriate solution for us and them it would be brought into life.

Then, respectfully, why are you attempting to provide a solution? If you're so convinced of the futility of being here, why are you here? If we're all just pissing into the wind, why even show up?

I'm here because I believe that discussing something sensible will give the developers impetus to at least consider a real solution, which is why I'm not shooting for the moon with my proposal. I don't believe they'll do exactly what I want them to do, but I am trying my best to give them feedback that they can actually work with. That's why I'm opposing your ideas, because they don't seem like something that's possible or desirable for the dev team.

I'm not providing a solution anymore, I surely did years before. Chimed in yet again here seeing how people ganged up against a person who's idea was different to what couple of people recently had agreed upon e.g. sliders. It's delusional saying it's an ultimate solution that would work for everyone, it's indeed a "capitulation" as they've originally said, people are afraid of sounding their different opinions here which might be attacked (not challenged, but actually attacked) right away by couple users just because those are probably less safe for them. If people want to discuss when they want it's completely fine here, it's a venting thread for some of us at this point.

Yet again, no thread-council or a consensus between couple of people in this forum would help you convince the devs that it's THE solution, so all this attempts to drive off new posters or people who sounding different things would help you achieving it.

For what it's worth, I think we've been a lot more cordial recently than you'll see in a lot of other threads in the forum. One time I started a thread about how I would like alternatives for staves because it's kind of silly that they're stored on the back, and man, that thread got unreasonably hostile for no reason.

I'm not trying to attack anyone, I'm just trying to provide my opinion to the contrary because I truly don't think it will work. I don't know how to better approach it, so I'm sorry if I come off as too aggressive. I hope that at least my counterpoints were cogent.

colossalvoids

disky wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

disky wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

On solutions part I've been told straight by one of the developers that they're not interested in our solutions, they need to know our "pain points" that were available since day one of this thread. The ball is on their side for years, pretty sure all the data needed was researched years ago and decisions were made, for better or worse for us. We're just discussing things we want between ourselves, it's not like if majority of people in this thread be it us or people hating any semblance of change will council and decide what's appropriate solution for us and them it would be brought into life.

Then, respectfully, why are you attempting to provide a solution? If you're so convinced of the futility of being here, why are you here? If we're all just pissing into the wind, why even show up?

I'm here because I believe that discussing something sensible will give the developers impetus to at least consider a real solution, which is why I'm not shooting for the moon with my proposal. I don't believe they'll do exactly what I want them to do, but I am trying my best to give them feedback that they can actually work with. That's why I'm opposing your ideas, because they don't seem like something that's possible or desirable for the dev team.

I'm not providing a solution anymore, I surely did years before. Chimed in yet again here seeing how people ganged up against a person who's idea was different to what couple of people recently had agreed upon e.g. sliders. It's delusional saying it's an ultimate solution that would work for everyone, it's indeed a "capitulation" as they've originally said, people are afraid of sounding their different opinions here which might be attacked (not challenged, but actually attacked) right away by couple users just because those are probably less safe for them. If people want to discuss when they want it's completely fine here, it's a venting thread for some of us at this point.

Yet again, no thread-council or a consensus between couple of people in this forum would help you convince the devs that it's THE solution, so all this attempts to drive off new posters or people who sounding different things would help you achieving it.

For what it's worth, I think we've been a lot more cordial recently than you'll see in a lot of other threads in the forum. One time I started a thread about how I would like alternatives for staves because it's kind of silly that they're stored on the back, and man, that thread got unreasonably hostile for no reason.

I'm not trying to attack anyone, I'm just trying to provide my opinion to the contrary because I truly don't think it will work. I don't know how to better approach it, so I'm sorry if I come off as too aggressive. I hope that at least my counterpoints were cogent.

Yeah it's still way better than Steam discussion board lol. I'm just getting triggered to reply here when environment gets too hostile or heated in my opinion, surely a lot of people seem very protective of their ideas or how some of it might affect their gameplay so people going overboard from time to time. But civil discussion of solutions, problems etc. is great as a vent and actually giving some insight into "what the problem is" even if focused on "how to solve it" if you're getting me, like immersion, adventure, danger or engagement being mentioned.

Elsonso

Theist_VII wrote: »

“Spellcrafting would be broken.”
“How would they balance it? It’s impossible.”
“I’ll make a one-shot kill fireball.”
“It’s been 10 years, not happening.”
Every. Single. Page.

I am trying to decide how to frame this in context.

Are you using these as examples of how the community might be wrong about overland and the challenges that the development team and players might face?

If so, keep in mind that the players are rarely consulted about new features, so we sit out here in the forum and entertain ourselves with guesses in the form of fears, worries, hopes, and dreams. The reality of what ZOS does ends up being what ZOS wants to do. It might be great, or it might be disappointing. Usually it is a mix both (based on observed reactions), but it is something they can accomplish within the technical, financial, and resource budget that they have.

disky wrote: »

Then, respectfully, why are you attempting to provide a solution? If you're so convinced of the futility of being here, why are you here? If we're all just pissing into the wind, why even show up?

I'm here because I believe that discussing something sensible will give the developers impetus to at least consider a real solution, which is why I'm not shooting for the moon with my proposal. I don't believe they'll do exactly what I want them to do, but I am trying my best to give them feedback that they can actually work with. That's why I'm opposing your ideas, because they don't seem like something that's possible or desirable for the dev team.

Like the person above, I have been told directly by a dev that they are looking for problems, not solutions, and that they will come up with the solution to fit the problem that they want to solve. What was said to me is that players do not fully understand the systems and technology, so they don't know what can be done and what will cost too much to do. What sounds like a good solution might be way off base.

Problems presented as solutions require an additional level of analysis. It is necessary to work the solution backwards to see what it is actually solving, and not solving, to find the problem that needs to be fixed, and identify anything that is not a problem and maybe should not be changed.

To that end, I think that this thread provided the entire "problem" definition within the first few pages. I would suggest that nothing really new has been added to the "problem" for a very very long time. Given that new people enter into this thread, I find that interesting.

As for solutions, that debate still goes on, but I see it mainly as entertainment for the people in the forum. Discussing and debating the merits of various solutions is a thing, even if ZOS isn't super interested in that content. For all I know, someone is still compiling what is said in here for possible use by the devs, but I would not be surprised if they stopped doing that two years ago. This discussion is not a nursery for emerging ideas.

Still, it can be entertaining to discuss the pros and cons of different ideas and express what is liked and disliked about them.

colossalvoids

Elsonso wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Then, respectfully, why are you attempting to provide a solution? If you're so convinced of the futility of being here, why are you here? If we're all just pissing into the wind, why even show up?

I'm here because I believe that discussing something sensible will give the developers impetus to at least consider a real solution, which is why I'm not shooting for the moon with my proposal. I don't believe they'll do exactly what I want them to do, but I am trying my best to give them feedback that they can actually work with. That's why I'm opposing your ideas, because they don't seem like something that's possible or desirable for the dev team.

To that end, I think that this thread provided the entire "problem" definition within the first few pages. I would suggest that nothing really new has been added to the "problem" for a very very long time. Given that new people enter into this thread, I find that interesting.

As for solutions, that debate still goes on, but I see it mainly as entertainment for the people in the forum. Discussing and debating the merits of various solutions is a thing, even if ZOS isn't super interested in that content. For all I know, someone is still compiling what is said in here for possible use by the devs, but I would not be surprised if they stopped doing that two years ago. This discussion is not a nursery for emerging ideas.

Thank for putting it in a better words that I was probably not able to due to language barrier.

disky

Elsonso wrote: »

Like the person above, I have been told directly by a dev that they are looking for problems, not solutions, and that they will come up with the solution to fit the problem that they want to solve. What was said to me is that players do not fully understand the systems and technology, so they don't know what can be done and what will cost too much to do. What sounds like a good solution might be way off base.

That's exactly correct. I don't understand the troubles ZOS will run into during development, but I do at least understand some of the more fundamental issues they'll encounter in managing the project, which is why I've been trying to make them plain to those asking for a more complex solution.

I'm sure they have their own ideas because it's their job. What's important to me is that we distill the most sensible option through discussion and present it as a community to the devs as something we want. That's why, when someone pitches an idea that may be disruptive in some way, I try to show the flaws in their proposal. I want the best idea to be the prevailing one in the community, and I want ZOS to see it as such.

I do also hope we can provide an idea or two every now and then. The devs aren't perfect by any means. "We're not looking for solutions" is understandable given how many terrible ideas we have in the community, but I still think it's important to listen for the occasional good one, and failing to address community outcry has caused many games to lose quite a lot of money. I feel like overland challenge is this kind of problem.

Elsonso wrote: »

As for solutions, that debate still goes on, but I see it mainly as entertainment for the people in the forum. Discussing and debating the merits of various solutions is a thing, even if ZOS isn't super interested in that content.

Believe it or not, I don't actually want to be here. I'm not someone who spends time on forums because they're often toxic and a reflection of the worst a community has to offer. I keep coming back because I love the game and I know that it's missing something important and I want it to improve. Once we get some kind of reasonable change, you will probably never hear from me again.

Elsonso wrote: »

This discussion is not a nursery for emerging ideas.

Mostly no, but it's a way for us to present the idea we have and tell the people who make the game what we want. We just have to keep putting it forth and defending it and showing that it's the best idea, both to detractors and to ourselves, and hopefully, at least someone will listen, for our sake and for the sake of the game.

Muizer

Elsonso wrote: »

Problems presented as solutions require an additional level of analysis. It is necessary to work the solution backwards to see what it is actually solving, and not solving, to find the problem that needs to be fixed, and identify anything that is not a problem and maybe should not be changed.

I agree, up to a point anyway. Proposing a difficulty slider is, taken at face value, like proposing a magic wand, because it only evokes a UI element and as long as you don't go into what exactly it should do everyone can imagine it will bring them what they seek. This is very unhelpful for developers and adding it is 'simple' doesn't make it so.

Elsonso wrote: »

To that end, I think that this thread provided the entire "problem" definition within the first few pages. I would suggest that nothing really new has been added to the "problem" for a very very long time. Given that new people enter into this thread, I find that interesting.

I have to disagree here. The reverse engineering from solution to problem that you mentioned has already lead to some refinements beyond the initial problem.

We know a slider presumes the configurations of the encounters stay as they are, with any scaling happening across the board.

Conversely separate Veteran instances would be the go to solution if it were necessary to change the configuration of the encounters.

Then there are solutions that have been alluded to as ZOS' way of addressing overland difficulty like IA and Bastion Nymics that no matter how creative you get in 'reverse engineering' the problem don't lead to an overland problem being addressed.

The only thing I recall having been added that could be construed as addressing overland difficulty are the wandering bosses (since Blackwood?). But if I reverse engineer that 'problem' I get something like "we need more (varied) challenging content in overland". That might work for some, but I suspect by 'challenging overland" most of us want it from the existing encounters or at the very least as an aspect of the existing questing experience.

Elsonso wrote: »

This discussion is not a nursery for emerging ideas.

For what it's worth I don't believe in campaigning on a forum to get something into the game. Then again, whoever reads this can't un-read it. Perhaps way down the line the dormant seed will germinate.

disky

Muizer wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Problems presented as solutions require an additional level of analysis. It is necessary to work the solution backwards to see what it is actually solving, and not solving, to find the problem that needs to be fixed, and identify anything that is not a problem and maybe should not be changed.

I agree, up to a point anyway. Proposing a difficulty slider is, taken at face value, like proposing a magic wand, because it only evokes a UI element and as long as you don't go into what exactly it should do everyone can imagine it will bring them what they seek. This is very unhelpful for developers and adding it is 'simple' doesn't make it so.

Yeah, but the thing is, we have discussed the finer details numerous times. I think implying that we're all out here asking for something undefined is a little disingenuous (not that I'm laying that on you). I'm always happy to provide my ideas regarding the specifics if it comes up in the conversation.

TaSheen

@Muizer - I just wanted to tell you....

I LOVE YOUR SIG. Truer words were never posted....

disky wrote: »

Yeah, but the thing is, we have discussed the finer details numerous times. I think implying that we're all out here asking for something undefined is a little disingenuous (not that I'm laying that on you). I'm always happy to provide my ideas regarding the specifics if it comes up in the conversation.

I think that's very true. And I also think it's part of the whole "just tell us the pain points/problems; we don't want players doing solutions" thing.

The bottom line for me really is: I don't have a solution at all, so the devs don't have to worry about that aspect from me. I have a "pain point/problem" if and only if the ramping up of overland difficulty (to the point where, since Galen, I really can't have fun in overland because I'm having to watch out for "gotchas" no matter what I'm doing) continues. And honestly.... there will be things I will still do and enjoy - but it won't be questing in new content, and it will be cutting back my activities (surveys, exploration, etc) in overland.

Since what I love most is overland and story quests.... well, y'know? There will come a point where I'll just sit in base game and DLC content before High Isle/Galen until I just can't find enough to keep me occupied, and then I'll leave 4 accounts behind.

I'm only one person, so I don't expect the devs(or anyone else) to care.... But the people who keep insisting on ramping difficulty overall instead of with a slider.... well, that's really unfortunate - because I'm not saying overland HAS to be my way. I'm saying a slider or other optional harder setup is fine with me. In other words, I care about those of you who find overland distasteful because it's too easy; but there's a lot of people out there who just tell me "Get good"....

Theist_VII

TaSheen wrote: »

I'm only one person, so I don't expect the devs(or anyone else) to care.... But the people who keep insisting on ramping difficulty overall instead of with a slider.... well, that's really unfortunate - because I'm not saying overland HAS to be my way. I'm saying a slider or other optional harder setup is fine with me. In other words, I care about those of you who find overland distasteful because it's too easy; but there's a lot of people out there who just tell me "Get good"....

Here’s something for the confusion, smarter AI with the addition of a difficulty slider would imply an easier difficulty than what is current paired with an AI update.

Not worse rewards.

Just that the new standard mode would be Story, and enemies would be weaker to balance out a more mechanical experience, allowing anyone, and I mean that, ANYONE can experience the full story of the game, if that’s what they are solely interested in.

As far back as I care to read, I don’t see many people advocating for just smarter AI and a harder experience, period, so I’m lost as to where the quoted paragraph you wrote came from.

TaSheen

@Theist_VII - that goes back to when this whole thread actually started - some of those who were very pointed in their attacks on not just me but others of similar situations (including some who stated unequivocally that those of us with health issues, or older, or with diagnosed disabilities should just quit playing instead of being "catered to") haven't been back to this thread in quite a while - and some of the nastier posts got removed.

Altogether, my feeling about it from the three years I've been reading (and a couple of years posting) is that there are probably still quite a few people who just want the entire thing ramped up to extreme difficulty, but they've quit posting because they either can tell from what was said in a stream or two that that's not really likely - or they've left the game - or they got tired of being "modded out". I recognize a couple of them who do still post, naming no names as that's not really very nice and also counter-productive.

I really hope that the devs decide to do something serious regarding at least a slider because I get the feeling they're not really interested in making a whole "veteran overland by instance".

Elsonso

TaSheen wrote: »

I really hope that the devs decide to do something serious regarding at least a slider because I get the feeling they're not really interested in making a whole "veteran overland by instance".

I think that veteran overland instances would be seen as "going backwards", which comes from the statements that Slashlurk made on his stream a few times where they "did that already" and the players didn't want it. There was some push back to him saying that, but I think those missed the bigger picture in that Slashlurk was probably very correct in his assessment.

I still find myself wondering whether even a slider is worth their effort. I know a lot of people around here like the idea, myself included if it also allows overland to be easier than it is today, but we are just the forum. I think they know their player base better than any of us in here. If they thought that adding a slider would result in enough additional revenue and sufficiently more engagement, my feeling is that they would have done it already, or would at least be working on it. I am not saying that they are greedy for revenue, but bills do have to be paid, so that has to be taken into consideration.

disky

Elsonso wrote: »

If they thought that adding a slider would result in enough additional revenue and sufficiently more engagement, my feeling is that they would have done it already, or would at least be working on it. I am not saying that they are greedy for revenue, but bills do have to be paid, so that has to be taken into consideration.

Would they have, though? I mean, we've gotten plenty of features which I doubt drive revenue, like home tours, for instance. It's a nice feature, but it wasn't something I expected, I don't know if it was even advertised, and I wouldn't say it improves the core gameplay experience. Far be it from me to tell ZOS where to place their priorities, but it seems like directly addressing overland challenge would be a more financially prudent use of their staff, even if it is for a minority of the community. People leave the game because of this, and I don't think anyone has left the game because it lacked a way to easily view player housing.

Amethyst_Unearthed

i wish i could unfollow this thread.... i regret commenting awhile back.... no need to tag me or reply cuz i am bombarded with dozens of notifications from this i already dont ready cuz im anoyed

spartaxoxo

Amethyst_Unearthed wrote: »

i wish i could unfollow this thread.... i regret commenting awhile back.... no need to tag me or reply cuz i am bombarded with dozens of notifications from this i already dont ready cuz im anoyed

You can unfollow it

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/profile/preferences/