Overland Content Feedback Thread

disky

I'm not going to quote you point-by-point because it's gotten out of hand, but EQ is what it is because it's effectively the original MMO (I played UO for years, let's not have this discussion) and WoW is the industry leader by a country mile. If those are the examples then yeah, of course it appears to be the industry standard but that doesn't mean it's true for the vast majority of other games in the market. A couple of big, old games does not a standard make, and certainly if you look at more modern MMOs you will not find this kind of system. It's generally reserved for "the good old days" classic-style servers or PvP servers, which aren't what we're discussing here, and so it's only even somewhat relevant.

You're still asking ZOS to do something that, to my knowledge, has not ever done before, which would require its own maintenance and balance considerations meaning dedicated developers and man-hours, which doesn't have a vast amount of support in the community and probably wouldn't see enough use to justify a server configuration all its own. And I have to wonder why, when there is an alternative that keeps everyone together and doesn't negatively impact you. It seems like you just want to have a server where everyone is on the same page from an effort standpoint, but I just don't see why it matters. Who cares what other players are doing? If you're grouping with players like you and you're all having a good time together, why does it matter if some nearby rando is having a good time in a slightly different way? How does it directly impact your experience?

SilverBride

Franchise408 wrote: »

Higher difficulty content makes me more likely to group up with players, as it becomes more efficient...

The more efficient way to experience the story is with less difficult mobs and not having to find others that want to take on the problems of questing with another player.

"...players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time." as Rich stated when asked about a veteran overland.

It is not guaranteed that players in a veteran overland would have the same goals as others, and unlikely that very many would choose to quest in a veteran overland because it is not efficient.

spartaxoxo

Many players in Overland are not questing for efficiency. As Rich has also stated, the vast majority of players in this game like the story and exploration. So, it's highly likely a lot of people would use a vet experience.

But many people would rather skip it if it's a separate instance because they want to quest with friends or other people around. Player separation was a reason the last implementation failed. Ofc, to be perfectly fair, what the devs don't appear to realize is that player separation back then wasn't just on difficulty level. So, it got a lot more separate than anything post-One Tamriel would be.

Franchise408

disky wrote: »

I'm not going to quote you point-by-point because it's gotten out of hand, but EQ is what it is because it's effectively the original MMO (I played UO for years, let's not have this discussion) and WoW is the industry leader by a country mile. If those are the examples then yeah, of course it appears to be the industry standard but that doesn't mean it's true for the vast majority of other games in the market. A couple of big, old games does not a standard make, and certainly if you look at more modern MMOs you will not find this kind of system. It's generally reserved for "the good old days" classic-style servers or PvP servers, which aren't what we're discussing here, and so it's only even somewhat relevant.

You're still asking ZOS to do something that, to my knowledge, has not ever done before, which would require its own maintenance and balance considerations meaning dedicated developers and man-hours, which doesn't have a vast amount of support in the community and probably wouldn't see enough use to justify a server configuration all its own. And I have to wonder why, when there is an alternative that keeps everyone together and doesn't negatively impact you. It seems like you just want to have a server where everyone is on the same page from an effort standpoint, but I just don't see why it matters. Who cares what other players are doing? If you're grouping with players like you and you're all having a good time together, why does it matter if some nearby rando is having a good time in a slightly different way? How does it directly impact your experience?

I don't care what other players are doing. However, the argument against separate instances has been about splitting the playerbase. Splitting the playerbase only matters in regards to people grouping up together, and I am not going to be grouping up with players that don't have similar goals and objectives as me in mind. Therefore, protesting against splitting the playerbase serves no purpose if it's not about getting people to play together. Having random people playing individually from each other serves no purpose on the "splitting the playerbase" front. If it doesn't matter whether someone is running around picking flowers or not, then it doesn't matter if the playerbase is split apart. I don't want to group with the person picking flowers, and the person picking flowers doesn't need or want a group to do that activity, and probably prefers to be left solo where they can just do their own thing without being bothered. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but why do I have to be in the same instance as that person? Why is it detrimental to the game if I am playing in a different instance from that person where they can do their flower picking, and I can fight my more challenging encounters, and have the player space in the instance being filled up by people who may also want to work together on those challenging encounters, instead of people who are picking flowers that I will not be engaging with? 30 people picking flowers and solo questing on easy does not give me more of a selection than 5 players in the instance who are also doing the same content that I am doing and may choose to group up with them if the content is actually challenging enough to warrant working together.

Secondly, it's not just WoW or EQ. New World also has separate servers, and they are far from as popular as ESO. Countless other games in the past have had separate servers and rulesets. It is not just WoW and EQ that do it. Again, ESO is the only MMO I've ever played that doesn't so it, and even then, the game already does do it for every other aspect of the game except the overworld.

spartaxoxo

Franchise408 wrote: »

I don't care what other players are doing. However, the argument against separate instances has been about splitting the playerbase. Splitting the playerbase only matters in regards to people grouping up together, and I am not going to be grouping up with players that don't have similar goals and objectives as me in mind. Therefore, protesting against splitting the playerbase serves no purpose if it's not about getting people to play together. Having random people playing individually from each other serves no purpose on the "splitting the playerbase" front.

YOU may refuse to group. But the splitting the playerbase isn't about any particular individual in this thread or game. It is about the overall playerbase.

The vast majority of the playerbase uses the current overland, including vets. We know this because the devs have already told us that the vast majority of players enjoy the story and exploration. Many of those people (but not all) are willing to help someone out of if they see them regardless if they have the same goal. I know that people do this because I am one of them. Because I actually use the overland, I also see it happening on a regular basis. So, my argument isn't going to be based on the idea that people like myself do not exist. That would be bizarre.

Players need to see people out and about regardless if they are grouping. That is how they know the game isn't dead. And they need to be able to help one another out with group content such as world bosses and world events. This requires proximity.

Anyone who actively plays overland knows that not all zones have healthy populations to facilitate this basic dynamic of overland play.

disky

New World has servers with the same ruleset, that's not a relevant comparison.

The counterpoint was never just "splitting the playerbase", although I'll get to that in a moment. More importantly, it's about the time and effort it will take to develop, implement and maintain the different server configuration which I know you don't think will be a significant challenge but it will be far more effort than you're allowing for, and it wouldn't be necessary if there is a player-level solution that doesn't separate players who can absolutely become potential party members when they're not "picking flowers". Just because a player wants to do something that you're not interested in, that doesn't mean they won't decide to do something else at a later time. You're acting as if those who choose to pick flowers are only ever spending their time picking flowers when people like to take advantage of a variety of activities in the game. More players in the server means more opportunities for the groups you want. Even if you don't believe they'll decide you group with you, people aren't flower-picking robots and they make choices that are unpredictable. That's a good thing for you.

Franchise408

disky wrote: »

New World has servers with the same ruleset, that's not a relevant comparison.

The counterpoint was never just "splitting the playerbase", although I'll get to that in a moment. More importantly, it's about the time and effort it will take to develop, implement and maintain the different server configuration which I know you don't think will be a significant challenge but it will be far more effort than you're allowing for, and it wouldn't be necessary if there is a player-level solution that doesn't separate players who can absolutely become potential party members when they're not "picking flowers". Just because a player wants to do something that you're not interested in, that doesn't mean they won't decide to do something else at a later time. You're acting as if those who choose to pick flowers are only ever spending their time picking flowers when people like to take advantage of a variety of activities in the game. More players in the server means more opportunities for the groups you want. Even if you don't believe they'll decide you group with you, people aren't flower-picking robots and they make choices that are unpredictable. That's a good thing for you.

I mean you do realize that with difficulty instancing, they won't be forced into that instance always and forever, right?

I can open up Diablo 4 right now and bounce around between about 8 different difficulty instances at will. I don't pick one difficulty and stay there forever. I can go to a lower difficulty or higher difficulty based on whatever I want to do in that moment.

In ESO, which is a far more relevant comparison because again... ESO is already using player splitting methods to create different instances with different rulesets, including for vast, major areas like Cyrodiil... I don't get stuck doing vet dungeons and trials forever just because I chose to do a vet dungeon once. I can queue up for whichever difficulty I choose at any point dependent upon my mood. So those flower pickers that may want a lower difficulty while they are picking flowers, they can loan into a vet instance of a zone at a later time if they choose to do more challenging content, and can go back to the lower difficulty instance when they want to go back to picking flowers again. There is nothing in ESO that would keep you in one difficulty or one instance forever. The instances aren't even really splitting the playerbase, it's just giving them options to have a version of a zone that lets them have the experience they want to have. When they want a different experience, they just load into the different difficulty instance.

These "player level solutions" are inconsistent with the game design that ESO has established in every other facet of their game. ESO has established separate instances for difficulty and rulesets for every aspect of the game. Dungeons, trials, Cyrodiil PVP, Imperial City PVP, arenas, etc. Even houses are individual instances of the same zones that every single player in the game can customize to their own liking. Every single one of these difficulty based instances is "at will", meaning the player can opt in or out of it at their leisure, and except for Cyrodiil due to campaigns, have 0 commitments to remain in that instance for any period of time (and, I haven't been in Cyrodiil in a looooong time, but if I recall correctly, there isn't even any commitment to remain in a particular campaign for the 30 day time period, rather, you have to commit to a specific faction in that instance of Cyrodiil for the duration. I could be wrong on that, tho) The *only* aspect of the game that does not have this is overland content. There is absolutely 0 reason why I couldn't be able to go into a delve or public dungeon and have a "Normal / Vet" option upon entering. This in and of itself would probably be satisfactory enough if they for whatever reasons "couldn't" do instances of every single overworld zone. At least the dungeons and delves would give us an option to have some more challenging content out in the world. People have even offered the "hard mode banner" solution for quest bosses. I venture to guess that even public dungeons and delves having a "vet" option and quest bosses having a "hard mode" option would be a lot for many people.

SilverBride

Franchise408 wrote: »

I mean you do realize that with difficulty instancing, they won't be forced into that instance always and forever, right?

They should be. If they were to go to the time and expense to create a veteran overland it shouldn't be a toggle thing. It should be a completely separate server that players have to commit to.

[Edited to add] If some players find overland so easy that they aren't even playing the game because they find it too unenjoyable, then why would they need to switch back and forth to an easy version?

spartaxoxo

Overland serves a different purpose to dungeons and others instanced content. It is meant to be the player hub where people can adventure together with people they are not grouped with. Permanent player separation runs counter to that. Currently, when there is not enough people to fill a zone, this game collapses the number of instances so that dead zones have a single shard. This way those in that shard can still hopefully play together. They would have a bare minimum of two shards if they had overland, even when a population isn't all that healthy with just the 1.

Also, by definition, two shards means it will always be split. 100% of all people in one shard is different from even 99% of people in shard 1 and 1% of people in shard 2. That's basic math and is fact.

Everytime they make a new shard they are splitting people up. The difference is in why. Making a new one because there are too many people in the old one versus making a new one to have different settings are different reasons. But, the both are still splits.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

I mean you do realize that with difficulty instancing, they won't be forced into that instance always and forever, right?

They should be. If they were to go to the time and expense to create a veteran overland it shouldn't be a toggle thing. It should be a completely separate server that players have to commit to.

If they were going to make a separate instance, why should players have to commit to it? That makes no sense to how these work in this game..

The instance itself would exist permanently. But, any given player would be able to pick and choose which they wanted to use.

disky

So if players can switch back and forth between instances, what is the point of this argument? Why are you so adamant about separating players by difficulty when the only difference is that otherwise you might happen to interact with players that aren't playing with exactly the same rules as you?

"I don't want to group with the person picking flowers, and the person picking flowers doesn't need or want a group to do that activity, and probably prefers to be left solo where they can just do their own thing without being bothered. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but why do I have to be in the same instance as that person?"

If I'm following you, your question indicates that the only reason you're taking this position and demanding this complex server implementation is that you don't want to see other players doing things you're not interested in doing. I'm going to assume you also don't want other players around you who aren't playing with the same rules because they're...ruining your experience somehow? Can you explain why this matters so much to you?

And with regard to vet mode and hard mode for bosses and delves/public dungeons, again, why does it matter whether this is handled at the instance/boss level versus the player level? Why does it have to be something that everyone deals with equally? When there is such a variety of builds and skill levels in the open zones, who really cares what another random player does or is capable of? Shouldn't we be fine with our own experience being enjoyable for ourselves?

Storms_in_Argonia

Hey,

I posted feedback here a couple of years ago, and just wanted to give some updates from a casual player. Assuming for the sake of argument that any new grand systems etc. are out of reach, I just want to say I REALLY like the difficulty design of the last 2 expansions: that being Necrom and Gold Road. (I'll admit the boss immunity phases in Gold Road can sometimes be a bit much, but beyond that the overall approach is much improved in my opinion) If we can't get anything added on a system level, it is nice having things like roaming bosses (the minotaurs for example) and having public delves and dungeons be on a higher difficulty level. I just went into Gorne the other day for the first time and the group event put me through my paces. I really like that the public dungeons feel similar in difficulty to what I'd call tier 1 normal dungeons, sometimes a bit harder depending on mechanics, but it's great. I've been a casual player my entire time in ESO and it feels nice to have this increase in difficulty. I'm glad it's been recognized that you can give players the zone to explore, but that doesn't mean certain parts of that zone just like a separate instanced trial or dungeon, can't have increased difficulty. The minotaur fire boss in silorn was also a fun challenge for my solo casual difficulty playstyle. This in my opinion, has been awesome to see. And if something is too hard, then we get the mmo aspect of the game and encourage socialization, or atleast public help. It's a direction I wanted the game to take. Thank you for all your hard work in that regard.

Now, onto some negative feedback in terms of what I think missed the mark and what could be improved:

Bastion Nymics: Getting 4 roaming mob drops to open a portal is just too tedious. It should either be a 1 kill drop (honestly, it shouldn't, just get rid of that requirement entirely for reasons below), or even just have the portals always open but on a set rotation. I think the difficulty is fine, it's just...it's a little boring getting to the fun part. This means fewer groups and fewer casual soloers because the time and energy ramp to get to the meat and potatoes of the Nymic content just doesn't feel rewarding or fast enough. These weren't successful, but I don't want the devs to abandon the idea just because it didn't work out. To put it succintly, I think you just over-thought this new system. It honestly should just be rotating portals, no need to get a drop from a roaming boss to enter...and people can just enter solo or form groups at the entrance like the witch's festival events. If it were this simple I could see the system being used in future expansions and zones to have little dungeon travels to other daedric realms like the end of Scrivener's Hall. It's just too complicated for it's own good. Players that want to run something like this want to approach it like a dungeon where it is just "go there and enter at your own risk". They don't want it to be a puzzle or task that takes time. This kills the mood. You basically made a dungeon system that just has a tedious key system attached to the frontend. Get rid of that and I think it could honestly be expanded. I think because this dungeon was done through overland there was some feeling that it was necessary to incorporate the overland into the dungeon itself, but that just doesn't work in terms of the fun factor. I remember in older mmorpgs like Lotro one had to unlock the gates to Carn Dum before one could run it. While there was a teeny tiny bit of immersive epicness the very first and only time you did that...you never wanted to do it again and just got a hunter or captain to take you to the camp outside the instance.

A few more side quests: I know this basically amounts to just "add more", but Necrom for example is oozing atmosphere visually, but doesn't have any side quests outside of deliveries in the main town. Just one more quest highlighting local culture or conflict in each zone's hub city would be nice. Telvanni Peninsula feels a bit sparse here in my opinion. When I take new characters through Western Skyrim or Elsweyr or even Blackwood I just feel like there's more local cultural quests. These quests help get me immersed in why I should care about this region even if I end up just resource node farming later. An example of what I mean in the base game is Ebonheart. I get there and there are 3 main quests all dealing with the political and racial tensions in the pact. Just something like that...A non-tutorial landing quest or series of quests. In Necrom I enter through the main gate and...there's nothing apart from dailies...Nobody saying "Hey adventurer, here's a story to introduce you to the troubles in our region." Now, maybe some of that content is in the main story quest, but I have issues with that which I will point out.

The Main Story Quest: Here's my issue as a casual player for both Necrom and Gold Road. I'm never going to see or engage with the main quest content...Why? Because the first quest has us sign a pact with Hermaeus Mora. Now, I'm not a hardcore roleplayer by any means, but for the most part I do like to play through "power fantasies" in this game. i.e. My warden is some druid mystic character wandering the wilds. My templar is a holy crusader vanquishing evil similar to Skyrim's Vigilant's of Stendarr. My nightblade might be an assassin with a dark backstory, but...on none of these characters do I want to sign a pact with a daedra. I just don't...it ruins the power fantasy. So I have to take out my pretending and step away from the game and just approach those quests as a "get em done" type deal that should be reserved for dailies or something, but not main story quests. Having read spoilers about what happens, I understand why one might have felt this was a necessary concession for the story to play out the way it does...but it's also one forced on the player that takes them out of the experience. In my opinion roleplay concessions this big (signing a pact with a dark entity) should stay in side quests or guild-specific quests, but are dangerous in main quests.

There are many reasons for player drop, but as a casual player my engagement with Necrom and Gold Road was less than prev expansions in large part due to the above factors. Some of the new content was too tedious to engage in and I didn't find myself immersed in the story/regional conflict as well as I could have been due to either missing opportunities or forced main quest concessions.

I guess I'm writing this because I also want to emphasize that despite the player count diminishing for a variety of reasons, I also don't want to discount the improvements made to the overland experience over the last 2 years that I feel put the game in a better place. So thank you for that (and if some of this staggered difficulty could fine its way to base game delves or public dungeons that would be cool too). I just feel like a couple of things muddied the waters (for myself at least) on my overall enjoyment and appreciation of where the game has moved forward and improved.

Peace and Happy Holidays and celebrations.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

[Edited to add] If some players find overland so easy that they aren't even playing the game because they find it too unenjoyable, then why would they need to switch back and forth to an easy version?

Sorry, just saw this edit.

For myself personally, I'd need to be able to switch because I enjoy vet content but sometimes my hands hurt too much and I need to do something with minimal button pressing if I play at all.

For others, while some in this thread may never switch, they wouldn't be the only one interacting with the system. A person who is new to vet content may decide to try it out, realize that it's not for them, and go back to playing on normal. If they were permanently locked in, they'd have to stop using that character. Same way some people try a dungeon or trial on vet, have it took a huge amount of time, and realize they aren't ready for it yet and go back to doing them on normal.

Franchise408

disky wrote: »

So if players can switch back and forth between instances, what is the point of this argument? Why are you so adamant about separating players by difficulty when the only difference is that otherwise you might happen to interact with players that aren't playing with exactly the same rules as you?

"I don't want to group with the person picking flowers, and the person picking flowers doesn't need or want a group to do that activity, and probably prefers to be left solo where they can just do their own thing without being bothered. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but why do I have to be in the same instance as that person?"

If I'm following you, your question indicates that the only reason you're taking this position and demanding this complex server implementation is that you don't want to see other players doing things you're not interested in doing. I'm going to assume you also don't want other players around you who aren't playing with the same rules because they're...ruining your experience somehow? Can you explain why this matters so much to you?

And with regard to vet mode and hard mode for bosses and delves/public dungeons, again, why does it matter whether this is handled at the instance/boss level versus the player level? Why does it have to be something that everyone deals with equally? When there is such a variety of builds and skill levels in the open zones, who really cares what another random player does or is capable of? Shouldn't we be fine with our own experience being enjoyable for ourselves?

I'm not sure how many more ways I need to answer the question.

No, I am not offended or bothered by someone in my instance picking flowers instead of grinding out the highest level content. The issue is this:

There is a clear discontent with many regarding the difficulty level of overland content. However, not all people want harder difficulty. These are both valid opinions and preferences to have. If nothing is done, people who aren't happy will continue to be unhappy. If harder difficulty is forced on everyone else, those people will become unhappy.

The game already implements methods of allowing for optional difficulty setting for every aspect of the game already, outside of the shared overland. This lends itself to an easy solution, as it is already used in game, and it remains consistent with all other aspects of the game. However, some people have argued against this stating the "splitting the playerbase" concern of separating players from each other.

I am saying that this is *not* a concern, and in fact would end up being a positive, because people out and about in the current world already aren't really engaging with each other anyways because the current state of overland does not lend itself to grouping, so people aren't working together anyways. I've also said that this should not be a concern, because the playerbase is already being split anyways. The group finder queue for dungeons is already split between normal and vet queues. Cyrodiil is split into different instances that have different rulesets and serve different purposes. Imperial City is split in a similar fashion. Overland zones are split into different shards based on population size.

I am saying that splitting the playerbase by normal and vet is more efficient than splitting it by sheer population size, because for those of us who want a more challenging overland that may actually lend itself to grouping, it will be more efficient to be among a group of peers that are more likely to be doing the same thing. I used the example of "flower pickers" to say that being in a shard of 100 people who just want to solo quest on easy and gather resources or hunt treasure chests is actually less likely to get me a group of like-minded players than if I were in a shard with 20 players all focused on doing more challenging content. Just like how if I want to find a group to do achievement and score pushing in vet dungeons and trials, I'm more likely to find that group in a guild curated to that sort of playstyle than I am by just picking up random people in Rimmen.

I'm not bothered in the least bit by seeing "flower pickers" in my instance (unless they snatch the resources I was aiming for lol), but in a world where I am more inclined to group because content is more challenging, that flower picker and I being in the same shard serves zero purpose, as we will both be of no benefit to each other. Were I in a shard of other players looking to do the same things, there would actually be a purpose to us being in the same shard.

I am saying that splitting the playerbase is not a concern because for purposes of overland, the playerbase isn't engaging with each other anyways.

As far as why I choose this solution over the more "player centered" solution of a debuff:

Normal and Vet instances are consistent with what ESO already does. There are already normal and vet instances of dungeons, which split the playerbase into 2 different queues for dungeons. There are normal and vet instances of trials, of arenas. PVP zones like Cyrodiil and Imperial City already have separate instances that split the playerbase. Normal and vet instances remain consistent with ESO's design philosophy.

Normal and Vet instance playersplitting is *not* the same as the playersplitting that led to One Tamriel. That playersplitting was based on other aspects that kept players away from each other *entirely* because they weren't the same faction. Normal and Vet playersplitting still allows players to go between the different instances at will to play with their friends and guild mates.

"Player centered" solutions, like the proposed debuffs, don't actually address the situation. Debuffs only serve to drag the fight out longer, similar to the immune phases that have been another recent subject of discontent. They don't actually make the encounters more interesting and engaging, the way that veteran content encounters already do and would.

A counter argument has been presented that it would be too much work to have additional zones with separate rules and mechanics, and I argue against that by saying it is what ZOS is already doing. They would not be creating a new methodology that hasn't been seen in ESO before. It's simply expanding their already existing design philosophy to include overland as well. I am also arguing that it should not been seen as too resource intensive to implement, as separate servers / instances, including servers and instances for different rulesets, are an industry standard for MMO's and online games. WoW has separate ruleset servers, EQ has separate ruleset servers, Warhammer Online had separate ruleset servers, and Diablo 4, which isn't a full blown MMO but is a persistent online world with loads and loads of players per instance, is a great example of separate difficulty instances and still having plenty of people per instance to do content with. Virtually every MMO I have ever played has some form of playersplitting based on difficulty or ruleset, and it is not isolated to a couple popular exceptions. I'd also argue that ESO is one of the most popular MMO's on the market, and ZOS is now owned my Microsoft, so while budgets are absolutely a thing, I'm going to say that resources to implement it is not a valid counter argument. ZOS has plenty of resources.

I'm not bothered by people picking flowers in my instance. I am arguing that worrying about splitting the playerbase when my only current interaction with other players is just merely watching them pick flowers is not a valid concern to have.

My opinion is not swayed by concerns of playersplitting or resources.

BasP

Franchise408 wrote: »

There is a clear discontent with many regarding the difficulty level of overland content. However, not all people want harder difficulty. These are both valid opinions and preferences to have. If nothing is done, people who aren't happy will continue to be unhappy. If harder difficulty is forced on everyone else, those people will become unhappy.

[...]

I am saying that splitting the playerbase by normal and vet is more efficient than splitting it by sheer population size, because for those of us who want a more challenging overland that may actually lend itself to grouping, it will be more efficient to be among a group of peers that are more likely to be doing the same thing.

When it comes to Normal / Veteran instances, one possible downside is that there'd be one set difficulty for the Veteran instance. And how difficult should it be? The opinions would probably vary among those that want Overland to be more difficult. I can imagine that some players would be content with a difficulty that's similar to a basegame Veteran Dungeon, but that would probably still be way too easy for others.

Of course ZOS could add Hard Mode banners in front of the bosses in the Veteran instance that makes them more difficult, while keeping the default Veteran difficulty doable for most players, but that seems like quite a bit of work for what's essentially a relatively small number of players. Or they could implement multiple Veteran instances with varying difficulties, but that would split the player base even more and it doesn't seem likely to me.

A player centered difficulty slider in the UI with increasingly stronger debuffs just seems like a simpler solution to me, and I'm guessing that it would solve most of my problems. Some of the bosses in the small number of DLC main quests I've done (before growing bored of doing those quests due to the lack of difficulty) already had mechanics that could've been interesting if I'd actually been in danger of dying - something that a difficulty slider could've accomplished, for example.

Dahveed

Franchise408 wrote: »

I'm not bothered by people picking flowers in my instance. I am arguing that worrying about splitting the playerbase when my only current interaction with other players is just merely watching them pick flowers is not a valid concern to have.

I have been saying this for YEARS. but people don't get it. In overland, not only do I NOT interact with other players (thus "splitting" me from them). but I actively log in to ESO during times of low population to specifically avoid people so that I can try to solo bosses without a gang of 2 or 3 other OP min-maxers just obliterating the thing I was fighting.

Indeed 99 percent of my open world interactions with other players are just annoying. If there was a solo only server I'd spend most of my time there.

What people don't understand is that the current overland content design actively discourages people from playing together and just makes us annoy one another with stupid emotes, ridiculous crown store mounts and ability spamming in cities for no reason. (This is just to name a few annoyances among dozens.) I can do without any of this.



Also I would add that all the thousands of players who have already quit ESO (myself included, several times) because of how incredibly boring and bland the overland is are quite thoroughly split from the player base, wouldn't you agree?

Noerra

I would like to contribute my thoughts as well:

As for me, I love questing, the story, the characters, the lore etc... But I find is too easy. The story may be epic, but my gameplay experience was boring. I've literally fallen asleep at my computer one time because the constant "go here and talk to them, now go here and talk to them, and go here and talk to them.... etc..."

When I did the Molag Bal fight at the end of the main story for the first time I was really disappointed. It was over in seconds....

So yeah, I personally would like the option to turn up the difficulty in overland content. Maybe have endeavors and rewards or something behind setting overland to "veteran" or something. Maybe Veteran gives more xp at the very least?

I've created characters specifically for overland content, to explore and stumble upon quests and such... but I gave up because it didn't feel epic or challenging.

To summarize: Please give us a difficulty slider or something for overland content?

Tariq9898

Franchise408 wrote: »

disky wrote: »

So if players can switch back and forth between instances, what is the point of this argument? Why are you so adamant about separating players by difficulty when the only difference is that otherwise you might happen to interact with players that aren't playing with exactly the same rules as you?

"I don't want to group with the person picking flowers, and the person picking flowers doesn't need or want a group to do that activity, and probably prefers to be left solo where they can just do their own thing without being bothered. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but why do I have to be in the same instance as that person?"

If I'm following you, your question indicates that the only reason you're taking this position and demanding this complex server implementation is that you don't want to see other players doing things you're not interested in doing. I'm going to assume you also don't want other players around you who aren't playing with the same rules because they're...ruining your experience somehow? Can you explain why this matters so much to you?

And with regard to vet mode and hard mode for bosses and delves/public dungeons, again, why does it matter whether this is handled at the instance/boss level versus the player level? Why does it have to be something that everyone deals with equally? When there is such a variety of builds and skill levels in the open zones, who really cares what another random player does or is capable of? Shouldn't we be fine with our own experience being enjoyable for ourselves?

I'm not sure how many more ways I need to answer the question.

No, I am not offended or bothered by someone in my instance picking flowers instead of grinding out the highest level content. The issue is this:

There is a clear discontent with many regarding the difficulty level of overland content. However, not all people want harder difficulty. These are both valid opinions and preferences to have. If nothing is done, people who aren't happy will continue to be unhappy. If harder difficulty is forced on everyone else, those people will become unhappy.

The game already implements methods of allowing for optional difficulty setting for every aspect of the game already, outside of the shared overland. This lends itself to an easy solution, as it is already used in game, and it remains consistent with all other aspects of the game. However, some people have argued against this stating the "splitting the playerbase" concern of separating players from each other.

I am saying that this is *not* a concern, and in fact would end up being a positive, because people out and about in the current world already aren't really engaging with each other anyways because the current state of overland does not lend itself to grouping, so people aren't working together anyways. I've also said that this should not be a concern, because the playerbase is already being split anyways. The group finder queue for dungeons is already split between normal and vet queues. Cyrodiil is split into different instances that have different rulesets and serve different purposes. Imperial City is split in a similar fashion. Overland zones are split into different shards based on population size.

I am saying that splitting the playerbase by normal and vet is more efficient than splitting it by sheer population size, because for those of us who want a more challenging overland that may actually lend itself to grouping, it will be more efficient to be among a group of peers that are more likely to be doing the same thing. I used the example of "flower pickers" to say that being in a shard of 100 people who just want to solo quest on easy and gather resources or hunt treasure chests is actually less likely to get me a group of like-minded players than if I were in a shard with 20 players all focused on doing more challenging content. Just like how if I want to find a group to do achievement and score pushing in vet dungeons and trials, I'm more likely to find that group in a guild curated to that sort of playstyle than I am by just picking up random people in Rimmen.

I'm not bothered in the least bit by seeing "flower pickers" in my instance (unless they snatch the resources I was aiming for lol), but in a world where I am more inclined to group because content is more challenging, that flower picker and I being in the same shard serves zero purpose, as we will both be of no benefit to each other. Were I in a shard of other players looking to do the same things, there would actually be a purpose to us being in the same shard.

I am saying that splitting the playerbase is not a concern because for purposes of overland, the playerbase isn't engaging with each other anyways.

As far as why I choose this solution over the more "player centered" solution of a debuff:

Normal and Vet instances are consistent with what ESO already does. There are already normal and vet instances of dungeons, which split the playerbase into 2 different queues for dungeons. There are normal and vet instances of trials, of arenas. PVP zones like Cyrodiil and Imperial City already have separate instances that split the playerbase. Normal and vet instances remain consistent with ESO's design philosophy.

Normal and Vet instance playersplitting is *not* the same as the playersplitting that led to One Tamriel. That playersplitting was based on other aspects that kept players away from each other *entirely* because they weren't the same faction. Normal and Vet playersplitting still allows players to go between the different instances at will to play with their friends and guild mates.

"Player centered" solutions, like the proposed debuffs, don't actually address the situation. Debuffs only serve to drag the fight out longer, similar to the immune phases that have been another recent subject of discontent. They don't actually make the encounters more interesting and engaging, the way that veteran content encounters already do and would.

A counter argument has been presented that it would be too much work to have additional zones with separate rules and mechanics, and I argue against that by saying it is what ZOS is already doing. They would not be creating a new methodology that hasn't been seen in ESO before. It's simply expanding their already existing design philosophy to include overland as well. I am also arguing that it should not been seen as too resource intensive to implement, as separate servers / instances, including servers and instances for different rulesets, are an industry standard for MMO's and online games. WoW has separate ruleset servers, EQ has separate ruleset servers, Warhammer Online had separate ruleset servers, and Diablo 4, which isn't a full blown MMO but is a persistent online world with loads and loads of players per instance, is a great example of separate difficulty instances and still having plenty of people per instance to do content with. Virtually every MMO I have ever played has some form of playersplitting based on difficulty or ruleset, and it is not isolated to a couple popular exceptions. I'd also argue that ESO is one of the most popular MMO's on the market, and ZOS is now owned my Microsoft, so while budgets are absolutely a thing, I'm going to say that resources to implement it is not a valid counter argument. ZOS has plenty of resources.

I'm not bothered by people picking flowers in my instance. I am arguing that worrying about splitting the playerbase when my only current interaction with other players is just merely watching them pick flowers is not a valid concern to have.

My opinion is not swayed by concerns of playersplitting or resources.

Speaking of having separate instances, I realized that Destiny 2 also did the same.

Not sure if you’ve played that game. But like ESO, there are many overland areas called ‘Destinations.’ It’s an easy area where you can meet and interact with others.

But when you start a quest, you have the option to choose between “Normal” and “Legend” difficulty.

If you choose Legend, you get teleported to a separate instance that takes place on the exact same overland map. Except now, you won’t see anyone. It’s just you by yourself with higher difficulty enemies. You can of course, still group up with your friends if you choose to.

ESO has that technology and system.

SilverBride

Dahveed wrote: »

Also I would add that all the thousands of players who have already quit ESO (myself included, several times) because of how incredibly boring and bland the overland is are quite thoroughly split from the player base, wouldn't you agree?

Where is the data to support that thousands of players quit because of overland being boring and bland?

Dahveed

SilverBride wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

Also I would add that all the thousands of players who have already quit ESO (myself included, several times) because of how incredibly boring and bland the overland is are quite thoroughly split from the player base, wouldn't you agree?

Where is the data to support that thousands of players quit because of overland being boring and bland?

The game is 10 years old. You cannot possibly argue this in good faith.

Literally 2 posts before yours is someone chiming in telling you they are falling asleep while playing.

I personally know at least 10 people who quit for precisely this reason. Youtube videos abound with hundreds/thousands of comments and likes etc all support this argument.

We're not going to rehash this old argument again.

Yes. thousands if not tens of thousands of people quit this game because it is extremely boring because of the difficulty.

All the people I know who quit - most of whom were die hard ES fans who played every single ES game - quit when they beat Molag Bal because it was so immensely disappointing.

Yes there are thousands (at least) and I'm not going to argue this point anymore. Keep your head buried in the sand if you want.

SilverBride

Dahveed wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

Also I would add that all the thousands of players who have already quit ESO (myself included, several times) because of how incredibly boring and bland the overland is are quite thoroughly split from the player base, wouldn't you agree?

Where is the data to support that thousands of players quit because of overland being boring and bland?

The game is 10 years old. You cannot possibly argue this in good faith.

Literally 2 posts before yours is someone chiming in telling you they are falling asleep while playing.

I personally know at least 10 people who quit for precisely this reason. Youtube videos abound with hundreds/thousands of comments and likes etc all support this argument.

We're not going to rehash this old argument again.

Yes. thousands if not tens of thousands of people quit this game because it is extremely boring because of the difficulty.

All the people I know who quit - most of whom were die hard ES fans who played every single ES game - quit when they beat Molag Bal because it was so immensely disappointing.

Yes there are thousands (at least) and I'm not going to argue this point anymore. Keep your head buried in the sand if you want.

10 players quitting and a handful posting they find overland boring is not proof that thousands have quit for that reason. My head isn't buried in the sand. I just don't find any evidence that thousands of players have quit because of overland being too easy.

In fact, before One Tamriel many players actually did quit because the veteran overland zones were too difficult. So much so that they removed veteran zones and it's been doing fine ever since.

Dahveed

Also I'd just like to mention that the golden pursuit has reinforced my point about how ridiculous everything really is. Having to gain 50 levels for the pursuit and also having to have an alt to 50 made me make my first ever "real" alt to level and it is just beyond ridiculous how easy everything is.

I have died once to slaughterfish, but otherwise my health never drops below 95%. It is actually insane to think that any game could be this easy.

SilverBride

Dahveed wrote: »

It is actually insane to think that any game could be this easy.

WoW overland is way easier than ESO's. There a player can outlevel the zone so far that the mobs no longer even attack them. And they have been around for 20 years now.

Dahveed

By the way. this is how polling is done for elections.

When they poll they take a small sample size as a representation of nation-wide trends.

So my small sample size of my brothers and friends, coupled with the additional samples of people in videos and forum posts etc. all saying "this is too easy so I quit" is a sample of a larger population base sharing the same opinion.

So yes. if literally 100 percent of the people I know all quit for the exact same reason, that "poll" demonstrates a greater meta trend.

spartaxoxo

According to Wikipedia, sometimes during 2020 this game had sold 15 million units. Let's pretend that each of these represent a player for the sake of argument. If 99% of players enjoyed the overland exactly as it is, that would still mean 150,000 players did not.

Personally, I don't see ZOS addressing this pretty much every year since at least Elsweyr, if it affected such a small percentage of users. But, even if we allow only 1% of users simply for the sake of argument, that's still tens of thousands of people who found it too easy.

This game is far too big for this issue not to have turned away thousands.

SilverBride

There is a steady influx of players joining, leaving, or taking temporary breaks from every MMO, for a variety of reasons. If a player specifically states why they left that does not mean that is why all the others did.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

There is a steady influx of players joining, leaving, or taking temporary breaks from every MMO, for a variety of reasons. If a player specifically states why they left that does not mean that is why all the others did.

I don't think anyone in this thread claimed that literally everyone who quit did so because of overland being too easy. Obviously, there's other reasons. There also probably more than 1% of the playerbase who does not like overland or the devs wouldn't bring it up every year. Devs respond to frequent concerns, which are ones that impact significant percentages of the population, not just 1%. I only used that tiny number for the sake of argument to show just how big this game is and by extension just how large the number of people who dislike overland must be.

doabhi

Can we hug our companions already?
I hate watching them pour their hearts out to us or celebrate a personal victory only to be forced in to responding like a goldfish-brained, socially tone-deaf moron with no compassion who's only brain cell is occupied by asking the same self-serving questions over and over.

(A hug player memento would be cool too)

Justification and Zerith-var spoilers below - Do not expand if you have not done this.

I just recently finished the Zerith-Var companion quests, and I have to say I absolutely cried through parts of this story.

Here's a guy who had to face a very difficult situation and watch his Partner and Lover turn dark, forced in to making a very difficult decision and in the end making the wrong choice due to the conflict of heart. Only to then be betrayed and lose everything including his own life.

It is a very emotional time for Zerith, coming to terms with the truth and finding forgiveness in himself. As his new found 'tamiit' you play the role of his new bestie, help him through this long path of personal growth and redemption as he comes clean, admits his feelings, circumstances etc and is forced to re-live it in visions of the past. - At no point, when he consoles in you are you able to show him any ounce of compassion beyond a few token lines of lecture to put him straight. At the end of it? he basically turns to you and says you are the reason he chose not to return to Azura with his now ex-lover, and live a second life by your side.

WHERE IS THE HUG OPTION ZOS!?
And if such an option was ever internally considered but shut down due to some nonsense managerial excuse like budget or time constraints, then shame on you. I hope when you next need a hug you are met with the same emotionally stunted dismissal we're forced to bear fourth.

screamingabdabs

Hmmm,

I have just come across this thread, I don't often post on the forum. Also I have also not read all of this thread, it would take far too long. Thus what I am about to suggest may already have been covered.

The parts I have skimmed through though seem to be saying.

Overland content is too easy
There needs to be some way to make it harder, but not force this on all players
Some want to be able to solo bosses etc without getting interrupted and are suggesting a separate vet instance, however others are worried this will split the player base.

There does not seem to be any consensus as to how to do this.

My suggestion is fairly simple. Add a shrine to someone like Boethiah at various points on the overworld map. Activating this would give the player the blessing of Boethiah and:

Increase mob health, add additional attacks to various types of mob, reduce player health etc based on a simple selection when you activate the shrine. There would also be an option to remove these effects.

These would *only* affect players with the blessing and so not split the player base, while at the same time increasing general difficulty for those who want to.

For those who want to be able to solo a wb. Place a shrine in the vicinity of the wb. Activating this would pull the player into Boethiah's realm in an arena similar to the ones for the infinite archive bosses. Something like a small version of the final arena in Dragonstar could be a start here.

Any de-buffs from the other overworld shrines would be brought into the boss fight.

Rewards would be scaled on by how much a player has increased the difficulty.

This would require quite a bit of coding from the devs, but could be added in stages. For example placing the shrines at some world bosses each patch, then adding the general overworld ones.

It would not solve all the issues, but could be a start. After all his thread was started in 2021, has some 245 pages in it and as far as I can tell nothing has changed regarding overland content since.

Franchise408

Dahveed wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

Also I would add that all the thousands of players who have already quit ESO (myself included, several times) because of how incredibly boring and bland the overland is are quite thoroughly split from the player base, wouldn't you agree?

Where is the data to support that thousands of players quit because of overland being boring and bland?

The game is 10 years old. You cannot possibly argue this in good faith.

Literally 2 posts before yours is someone chiming in telling you they are falling asleep while playing.

I personally know at least 10 people who quit for precisely this reason. Youtube videos abound with hundreds/thousands of comments and likes etc all support this argument.

We're not going to rehash this old argument again.

Yes. thousands if not tens of thousands of people quit this game because it is extremely boring because of the difficulty.

All the people I know who quit - most of whom were die hard ES fans who played every single ES game - quit when they beat Molag Bal because it was so immensely disappointing.

Yes there are thousands (at least) and I'm not going to argue this point anymore. Keep your head buried in the sand if you want.

For me it just seems like common sense.

Millions of players have come and gone from this game. Of those millions that no longer play, it's just within the realm of probability that thousands have quit because of the difficulty.

The question is whether that's thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, and where difficulty ranks on the list of reasons why people would quit. Is it a main reason, or is it lower on the list?