Overland Content Feedback Thread

vsrs_au

Zombocalypse wrote: »

Stupid question but what exactly is "overland"? For some reason my thread asking that was deleted.

It's just the main area of each zone, i.e. excluding zones with transition screens within the zone, such as delves, public dungeons and group dungeons.

Dahveed

Zombocalypse wrote: »

Stupid question but what exactly is "overland"? For some reason my thread asking that was deleted.

It's not a stupid question, before this thread was created I never heard the term "overland" before (not used that way, anyways).

I always just called it the open world or the "questing zones" or something.

SilverBride

Zombocalypse wrote: »

Stupid question but what exactly is "overland"? For some reason my thread asking that was deleted.

Overland is the open area of the zones, where most questing takes place.

Nharimlur_Finor

It's another train:

Jammy420

Zombocalypse wrote: »

Stupid question but what exactly is "overland"? For some reason my thread asking that was deleted.

The meat of the game, the stories we have to pay for every year. Main quest line, that stuff.

TaSheen

"Overland" is all the zones in the game, where the zone questing takes place, where the cities and towns are - anything that's not instanced content (that's dungeons, trials, arenas).

Rouz

Difficulty - People sometimes feel like the game is too easy while questing and its hurting their engagement. But difficulty is a tricky thing, because generally people don't like health sponges. For example, when I see people complain about this in the open world; they are rarely from players who are able to solo a world boss. So to them, those kind of encounters are not what they are looking for. I think a good starting point for this is damage taken. While questing/playing; there's so much that just doesn't feel like it poses a threat to you. I think we should start out with this via some kind of status effect system. You go to a shrine or something in game. Maybe a menu toggle that's easily noticeable by a player. Such a system makes it very easy to scale. It only applies to the player so you don't have to touch monsters. And you can adjust it easily just like any other status effect. When the player receives this shrine buff or menu toggle; it does something simple. It makes it more punishing for the player to get damaged. You can do this two fold. First, increase the damage the player receives. Perhaps just a resist debuff for physical/magic. You want the player to actually "feel" the impact of getting hit. Just like they do in a single player game. The other aspect of this is self healing. There's a lot more self sustain in this game than a singleplayer TES game. So perhaps a nerf to how much healing received the player has. The next part is why would a player want to do this? You need to make them feel rewarded for doing this. So you increase exp given by monsters, you increase rare drop chances, you increase rare materials or material count from nodes. This system is completely optional so if players want to go back to easy mode, they can. The current state of the game would stay the same. It would be the "without the buff" playstyle. This system also doesn't require the playerbase to split up among shards, reducing population impact. This would also help serve to funnel players into harder content. I think anyone watching the new players play the game and then try to transition into "harder" content at endgame rarely goes well. There's a huge learning curve. Allowing players to have a source of difficulty WITHOUT reliant on groups would help smooth out the road into endgame content. Potentially increasing endgame populations. Lord of the rings online already has a difficulty system that they implemented and, based on what I've seen, its fairly well received. Again its an optional system so those who want to enable it can. It would impact basically all overland content ONLY. Including things like public dungeons and location interiors. But wont be usable in things like group dungeons, trials, pvp, etc.

Velothi / Oakensoul - I think these are two great mythic items and I really think we should look into offering these to players early in the game. Not tied to a DLC. It feels like enough people feel "off" by the combat. Perhaps even rework these to offer different effects, but make what these offer "toggeable" or something like that. Giving players the option to customize their combat experience to either have no weapon swapping or to make it so that weaving has less of an impact with velothi's impact. This are huge things. And to that player who may be thinking "Man this game is almost what I'm looking for, its just weapon swapping/weaving that I'm not feeling", you're offering a solution to that...and its locked behind a payment and significant grind. Its just a very weird strategy. I'm not saying to make these things meta or to become top DPSers. However, it definitely seems like from a new player experience perspective; there's a significant demand to have these capabilities early on. And just make it so its a different way to play the game. Just like it is once you actually unlock them. I'm absolutely floored nothing has been done for this because these two items are HUGE gameplay changes. And ZOS, you're not leveraging them AT ALL to attract new players. Absolutely wild to me personally. This will hugely help leveling players in the overland content stick with the game if they are given the option to fine tune their combat style without having to play a significant amount of hours or pay money.

Cyrodiil - You have this huge map filled with nostalgia lures for players. And you locked it all behind PvP. Again, it seems like a waste of resources. The PvP doesn't seem that popular to begin with and I imagine if someone wants to "PvE" in there only, they're not gonna be to happy about having to deal with gankers. Introducing a PvE only mode for this map would not only offer some new content with little that you need to do as a developer, but Cyrodiil is gigantic and ripe with expansion. That means if you decide to do a map update for Cyrodiil. Add in some new locations and content. Not only would this give PvP players an update, but its also an update for PvE players. Giving you huge returns on investment from a player usage perspective. Like oh, here's a new open world cyrodiil location. In the PvP version, its got some quest and stuff related to PvP. A special new siege engine you can build. Or a new artifact. In PvE its just a series of new quests.Like the velothi/oakensoul mythic, this seems like a super low hanging fruit that nobody is touching. And if pvpers are worried that introducing a pve mode would kill cyrodiil pvp...I feel like that's an indication of an issue that is far worse and shows that your Pvp mode is reliant/surviving based on players who don't want to pvp. Not a good sign.

TaSheen

Interesting. I really don't want my Oakensoul changed from how it works now though (I don't use Velothi). They could do something similar earlier in game, but mythics are always only CP 160 - which of course works fine for those like me with accounts at that level (except for my baby one).

The current situation with upping overland difficulty seems to be to make new zones harder (to the point I'm not able to get past the zone story bosses any more - which is fine, there's plenty of other stuff for me to do still). They've never indicated any interest in boss "hard mode scrolls" or a pve version of Battle Spirit (which seems to me - not a programmer though!) to be the easiest way to "fix" things for those who do want a lot more difficulty in overland), or a slider, debuff setup etc. - in other words, everything that's been brought up over and over in this thread for the last three years.

Can't blame you at all for not reading 240+ pages!

disky

TaSheen wrote: »

Interesting. I really don't want my Oakensoul changed from how it works now though (I don't use Velothi). They could do something similar earlier in game, but mythics are always only CP 160 - which of course works fine for those like me with accounts at that level (except for my baby one).

The current situation with upping overland difficulty seems to be to make new zones harder (to the point I'm not able to get past the zone story bosses any more - which is fine, there's plenty of other stuff for me to do still). They've never indicated any interest in boss "hard mode scrolls" or a pve version of Battle Spirit (which seems to me - not a programmer though!) to be the easiest way to "fix" things for those who do want a lot more difficulty in overland), or a slider, debuff setup etc. - in other words, everything that's been brought up over and over in this thread for the last three years.

Can't blame you at all for not reading 240+ pages!

It's always nice to have someone new come in and provide consensus for the exact thing we've been trying to get ZOS to do for years, though. Just reinforces the notion that we've been right all along.

SilverBride

disky wrote: »

It's always nice to have someone new come in and provide consensus for the exact thing we've been trying to get ZOS to do for years, though. Just reinforces the notion that we've been right all along.

New feedback is always welcome, especially in a thread as old as this one. But it is not proof that either side of the debate is right or wrong.

disky

SilverBride wrote: »

disky wrote: »

It's always nice to have someone new come in and provide consensus for the exact thing we've been trying to get ZOS to do for years, though. Just reinforces the notion that we've been right all along.

New feedback is always welcome, especially in a thread as old as this one. But it is not proof that either side of the debate is right or wrong.

It's weird to hear this from you, knowing that you also agree.

SilverBride

disky wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

disky wrote: »

It's always nice to have someone new come in and provide consensus for the exact thing we've been trying to get ZOS to do for years, though. Just reinforces the notion that we've been right all along.

New feedback is always welcome, especially in a thread as old as this one. But it is not proof that either side of the debate is right or wrong.

It's weird to hear this from you, knowing that you also agree.

I agree with a slider or debuff on good faith, even though I don't see a need for it myself. And I believe that it is a small minority that wants more difficulty in overland.

I do not agree that one new poster stating their opinion reinforces that those wanting more difficulty have been right all along.

Dahveed

SilverBride wrote: »

disky wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

disky wrote: »

It's always nice to have someone new come in and provide consensus for the exact thing we've been trying to get ZOS to do for years, though. Just reinforces the notion that we've been right all along.

New feedback is always welcome, especially in a thread as old as this one. But it is not proof that either side of the debate is right or wrong.

It's weird to hear this from you, knowing that you also agree.

I agree with a slider or debuff on good faith, even though I don't see a need for it myself. And I believe that it is a small minority that wants more difficulty in overland.

I do not agree that one new poster stating their opinion reinforces that those wanting more difficulty have been right all along.

If you think "right all along" that the game is too easy, then Silverbride is correct, nobody is "right or wrong" and one new post about it doesn't tilt the argument.,

But we were "right all along" that there are players who want this, and that a slider/difficulty setting would be used. IMO for every player that posts on the forums about this, we could probably count at least 10 others that don't (probably more) who share the same opinion but who just don't care enough to actually post here.

I remember taking a marketing course (a long long LONG time ago) and our teacher told us that for every complaint phoned in or mailed (yes, snail mail, I'm freaking OLD), you can count at least 100 other customers with that same complaint, but just wouldn't bother writing an actual letter to a company. I think the same general rules apply here.

spartaxoxo

Dahveed wrote: »

I remember taking a marketing course (a long long LONG time ago) and our teacher told us that for every complaint phoned in or mailed (yes, snail mail, I'm freaking OLD), you can count at least 100 other customers with that same complaint, but just wouldn't bother writing an actual letter to a company. I think the same general rules apply here.

IDK about in this game but that's how it worked in another game I played and moderated. They considered the forums basically a cross section of their most invested users, but didn't consider them particularly good at capturing casual player feedback.

SilverBride

Dahveed wrote: »

I remember taking a marketing course (a long long LONG time ago) and our teacher told us that for every complaint phoned in or mailed (yes, snail mail, I'm freaking OLD), you can count at least 100 other customers with that same complaint, but just wouldn't bother writing an actual letter to a company. I think the same general rules apply here.

The general rule also applies to those that are happy with overland as it is. For every player posting that they are happy with overland as it is, there are probably 100 others that just aren't commenting.

Dahveed

SilverBride wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

I remember taking a marketing course (a long long LONG time ago) and our teacher told us that for every complaint phoned in or mailed (yes, snail mail, I'm freaking OLD), you can count at least 100 other customers with that same complaint, but just wouldn't bother writing an actual letter to a company. I think the same general rules apply here.

The general rule also applies to those that are happy with overland as it is. For every player posting that they are happy with overland as it is, there are probably 100 others that just aren't commenting.

Of course. That goes without saying.

But most of us are here trying to incite change. If nobody wanted anything changed, this entire topic wouldn't even exist. Or it would be named "Everything is perfectly fine and let's not change anything" thread. Which for obvious reasons wouldn't get many replies, if indeed everything is perfectly fine.

disky

SilverBride wrote: »

disky wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

disky wrote: »

It's always nice to have someone new come in and provide consensus for the exact thing we've been trying to get ZOS to do for years, though. Just reinforces the notion that we've been right all along.

New feedback is always welcome, especially in a thread as old as this one. But it is not proof that either side of the debate is right or wrong.

It's weird to hear this from you, knowing that you also agree.

I agree with a slider or debuff on good faith, even though I don't see a need for it myself. And I believe that it is a small minority that wants more difficulty in overland.

I do not agree that one new poster stating their opinion reinforces that those wanting more difficulty have been right all along.

To reinforce the notion of an idea is not to confirm that it's correct, it simply adds credence to the validity of it.

SilverBride

disky wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

disky wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

disky wrote: »

It's always nice to have someone new come in and provide consensus for the exact thing we've been trying to get ZOS to do for years, though. Just reinforces the notion that we've been right all along.

New feedback is always welcome, especially in a thread as old as this one. But it is not proof that either side of the debate is right or wrong.

It's weird to hear this from you, knowing that you also agree.

I agree with a slider or debuff on good faith, even though I don't see a need for it myself. And I believe that it is a small minority that wants more difficulty in overland.

I do not agree that one new poster stating their opinion reinforces that those wanting more difficulty have been right all along.

To reinforce the notion of an idea is not to confirm that it's correct, it simply adds credence to the validity of it.

A new poster agreeing with some others does not add credence to the validity of those posters' opinions. Feedback is our own personal opinions and not facts. And all opinions, for or against an idea, are already valid because they are how we each feel individually. But no one player's opinion is any more valid or reinforcing than anyone else's.

spartaxoxo

New people coming in to voice an opinion doesn't change the validity of the opinion. But it does reinforce the idea that it's more than just the small amount of people that frequently post in this thread that want this.

And the amount of players that want something is a factor that ZOS considers when making change. So, validity might be the wrong word. But it is reinforcing the idea that a slider is a good idea whenever new people come in and ask for one. Not in terms of validity or correctness, but in terms of numbers.

SilverBride

The only thing it reinforces is that after over 3 years someone that hadn't posted on this thread before did. I'm not going to read back over 7250 posts but I remember posts from others that don't regularly post on this thread that do not want overland changed, too.

There is way too much significance being placed on a new poster giving their feedback. I really don't think ZoS is going to take notice of this and see it as a deciding factor on how they address the topic.

spartaxoxo

Any new post asking for an overland slider reinforces the number of people asking for one, because 10 people is more than 9 people.

Any new post asking for no changes reinforces the number of people asking for things to stay the same, because 5 people is more than 4 people.

Not real numbers just for illustration. I am quite positive that the number of people who posted in favor of overland getting something to help with difficulty outweighs the number of people who posted they opposed all options. Which is to be expected because people generally post more often to complain than to say things are going just fine.

Regardless, the more people offering a piece of feedback reinforces the numbers of people who share that view.

SilverBride

Not all difficulty feedback is in this thread. There has been a lot of feedback in other threads about how difficult and long and drawn out the Zone Story Bosses, and World Bosses and Incursions have become, and how it is making the game much less enjoyable for many.

There is also a thread now about players leaving random dungeons, and it is suspected that a lot of it has to do with the DLC dungeons and bosses becoming progressively longer and more difficult. Players have often asked for an option to not have DLC dungeons in the random daily queue because a lot of players just plain don't like longer and more difficult content.

That feedback is also relevant.

spartaxoxo

Sure, overland feedback shared elsewhere is also relevant. Nobody argued otherwise. Dungeons aren't though IMO. It's a totally different type of content.

Acknowledging something positive about one side of an argument is not saying something that somehow invalidates another.

disky

SilverBride wrote: »

There is way too much significance being placed on a new poster giving their feedback. I really don't think ZoS is going to take notice of this and see it as a deciding factor on how they address the topic.

You're right, it's not that big of a deal. It was just made one, through unnecessarily deep clarification and bickering.

TaSheen

disky wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

There is way too much significance being placed on a new poster giving their feedback. I really don't think ZoS is going to take notice of this and see it as a deciding factor on how they address the topic.

You're right, it's not that big of a deal. It was just made one, through unnecessarily deep clarification and bickering.

That's a very common "echo chamber" effect, not only here but in other venues.

SilverBride

Disagreeing with something posted and explaining why is not bickering.

spartaxoxo

While I did not agree with SilverBride, I did not feel disrespected. We just have extremely different opinions on the game. I'd rather someone talk things out and explain why they disagree, it helps to understand their perspective even if I don't change my mind.

I think both sides giving feedback is important for the devs to see. So, they can better understand solutions for the game.

SilverBride

Thank you @spartaxoxo.

MindOfTheSwarm

What you guys are describing is what it used to be like. Zones were levelled in the past and were more difficult accordingly.

Dahveed

Here's a somewhat unrelated PSA for anyone looking for greater challenge in the game:

Play as a vampire. I finally got around to trying it after all these years and by Azura, is it objectively terrible.

I have died three times this week, twice in delves and once due to fall damage because I forgot I was low HP (lol). This is literally the first time I have EVER died in a public delve (after about 9 years of playing this game on and off) based on the screwy vampire HP sacrifice mechanics.

I'm going to make a separate ranting/complaining post about this in the near future, so stay tuned lol. But as it pertains to this thread, vampires actually make you much more squishy (which is pretty ironic after Lamae told me how powerful and immortal I was about to become), based on the very clunky mechanics.

So if you want to be challenged for the first time in years in any overland content, just become a vampire and use their weird self-nerf abilities to make things a bit exciting. I'm actually experience slight stress (and I'm having to actually pay attention to my health bar) during regular overland content for the first time literally ever, solely based on the fact that vampires are awful.