Overland Content Feedback Thread

Tariq9898

It seems many of the arguments I’ve been reading can be put to rest if only we know whether or not it’s optional. I hope it is but we’ll just have to wait and see.

CP5

Flangdoodle wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

• Many new players don't know what their skills do because they never have to know, success is handed to them so often that when they run into content that expects anything, it is seen as an unfair difficulty spike. Subtle difficulty teaches players, such as in the first level of the first Mario game, if you don't jump over the first goomba, you'll not see the rest of the game, players need to learn to jump to succeed in that game, but in ESO as has been shown in many videos, you don't need to be paying attention to survive against the likes of a giant animated suit of ancient armor.

Well said.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until I don't need to: This game does a horrible job of teaching players how to play it. Thus far, with few exceptions they've outsourced that function either to veteran players or to third party "content creators" who may or may not know what the ___ they're talking about. I firmly believe that the longevity of this game and its appeal to new players would be better served by putting some resources into some bona fide in-game tutorials - like the one for Volendruung in Cyrodiil for instance, where you not only get to use each skill outside of the high pressure combat situation, but you can go back and "brush-up" on them any time you want in a safe zone. That tutorial proves that they have the capability to do it, but for some reason (likely financial) they lack the will.

That's the problem. The last tutorial I did, the one in Northern Elsweyr, they had time freeze, the entire screen go blue, and a big pop up saying "Do a power attack" or a bash, and it forced me to do it three times to progress. Players have done those things in the tutorial, but because every zone expects players to be fresh out of the tutorial, having mastered none of those skills, not abilities, but game skills, the zone can't be expected to demand that kind of reaction from a player. Bashing an enemy who is channeling a spell, blocking an attack, those very basic things aren't required in the first zone, but every zone is the first zone, so they're never required. Growth happens in steps, but every zone is step 1.

And Silver, realistically, I'd say that there are plenty of players who care for this game but don't play it the same as you, and just as there are players who left early on because of the overbearing vet zones, so to have people left because of the overland content being, well, as it currently is. It wouldn't be realistic to expect ZOS to not address a pain point for players who are leaving, even if those players aren't you.

old_scopie1945

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

Options are optional.

No one said anything is going to be optional.

That's correct, I have seen no mention from ZOS of it being optional. Unfortunately ZOS does what ZOS wants to do. The Account Wide Achievements thing proves that point. It also highlights how much influence Content Creators have in these decisions and how little the rest of us have. At the end of the day they have ZOS's ear.

Those of us who where here at the start remember how hard the content was. Like many I jacked it in, only lasting six months. I remember how frustrating the game was and being an avid Elder Scrolls player how disappointed I was. The whole adventure was a dream come true. That dream turned into a nightmare. It wasn't until One Tamriel that I was tempted back.

The "Studio Director’s Letter" left me at first underwhelmed and then trepidation. All the points against harder overland content, IMO hold water.

I_killed_Vivec

I come to this argument from a different angle.

When 1T was put forward I begged and pleaded that they'd leave Craglorn as it was. We had already had enough power creep so that it wasn't the intimidating place it was when I first entered it at VR1. To the extent that just before 1T came in I could already solo all the content that was physically solo-able (i.e. not needing numbers to tread on plates, etc.), but just wandering around was still a serious undertaking.

I remember someone saying that Craglorn was how it should be in an ES game - relatively safe if you stick to the roads, but possible destruction awaiting you around every corner if you go off the beaten track. There were loads of comments about the wasps - I remember the first time I took down a Craglorn wasp when I was around VR8. There was an enchanting survey that had a wasp nest among the runestones... better make sure you ulti is powered up before taking them on!

They didn't listen, 1T came in. Packs of 6 welva were reduced to packs of 3. Wasps lost their sting - and so did scorpions. The one place that had challenging overland was transformed into a fun park. (If you hadn't realized, I loved Craglorn, and still do, but it's not the same).

But the reason why they didn't listen to me is because they had the figures - Craglorn was desperately unpopular. VR zones, with a true sense of progression, were desperately unpopular. It turns out that most people don't want that kind of challenge. 1T was apparently a success, it gave people what they wanted.

So I am not sure why they would go back to a harder overland mode. I'd use it - not because I'm any good but just to be challenged - but apparently the majority don't want it.

DeFoe

Maybe someone already said it (i sure someone did, but there are ~250 pages already and i don't wanna read it all to check), but imo, if you increase the difficulty - you should increase rewards too.


Right now overland is pretty simple most of the time (excl. world bosses in DLC zones) but also you get very low reward for doing it, like a few coins and absolutely useless gear for most of the regular mobs. That seems fair, low risk - low reward, all as it should be. But if difficulty going up, but we'll still have as loot none vut a few coins... It will be very disappointing

KingNutella

As a vet with 3k+ hours, I fully believe we should have a more engaging overland. This isnt just by creating HP sponges, but creating bosses with mechanics that need to be interacted with.

I also think there should be mechanical and strength differences in NPCs. A random wolf can remain easy to practically one-shot, but IMO a daedra or especially a quest boss should be stronger. The combat system in this game, IMO, is a built in a way that really only shines through fast-paced, dynamic encounters. Taking down major quest bosses before they can even get halfway through their monologue not only takes me straight out of the immersion but is also super boring gameplay wise. I honestly don't mind the difficulty of the final rehashed dungeon boss fights in Infinite Archive among the first three phases. It's definitely manageable by yourself, more engaging, and there should be ways to make it less punishing for players who arent able to take those bosses on.

Ideally, though, there would be a veteran/normal mode for instanced quest encounters or a difficulty slider.

I_killed_Vivec

DeFoe wrote: »

Maybe someone already said it (i sure someone did, but there are ~250 pages already and i don't wanna read it all to check), but imo, if you increase the difficulty - you should increase rewards too.


Right now overland is pretty simple most of the time (excl. world bosses in DLC zones) but also you get very low reward for doing it, like a few coins and absolutely useless gear for most of the regular mobs. That seems fair, low risk - low reward, all as it should be. But if difficulty going up, but we'll still have as loot none vut a few coins... It will be very disappointing

I take the opposite view - the attraction should be the challenge: the reward is the satisfaction of accomplishment.

The problem, in my eyes, with enhanced drops is that there is no way of assessing your contribution. Were you alone? Did you have a companion with you? Or a friend? Or was there a bunch of people acting together?

If it is fair that high risk = high reward, then I want something better than you if I'm solo and you have a companion...

And all of a sudden the game has to be taking into account all kinds of considerations just to determine the drops you get from overland mobs.

CP5

I_killed_Vivec wrote: »

DeFoe wrote: »

Maybe someone already said it (i sure someone did, but there are ~250 pages already and i don't wanna read it all to check), but imo, if you increase the difficulty - you should increase rewards too.


Right now overland is pretty simple most of the time (excl. world bosses in DLC zones) but also you get very low reward for doing it, like a few coins and absolutely useless gear for most of the regular mobs. That seems fair, low risk - low reward, all as it should be. But if difficulty going up, but we'll still have as loot none vut a few coins... It will be very disappointing

I take the opposite view - the attraction should be the challenge: the reward is the satisfaction of accomplishment.

The problem, in my eyes, with enhanced drops is that there is no way of assessing your contribution. Were you alone? Did you have a companion with you? Or a friend? Or was there a bunch of people acting together?

If it is fair that high risk = high reward, then I want something better than you if I'm solo and you have a companion...

And all of a sudden the game has to be taking into account all kinds of considerations just to determine the drops you get from overland mobs.

Dungeons don't care if you're solo or in a group. If the rewards are on the same curve as vet dungeons are to normal one's, more rolls at a lower difficulty is better than fewer rolls at a higher difficulty, in terms of items, and what other rewards would there be? More exp only compensates for longer times to kill, and even the better loot is compensated for by having fewer items at the end of the same length of time.

spartaxoxo

Reasons to believe that overland will not be forced....

1. They said in prior several interviews including their last that they have to be careful with any overland adjustments to not make things too hard for their casual player
2. They listed whatever happens under the systems/ideas category. All prior systems have been optional
3. Previously forced difficulty almost killed the game and corporations are inherently risk adverse
4. Previous feedback in this thread was near universal that whatever happened needed to be optional
5. When a player started panicking about it being forced, Kevin came in here and told them they didn't even know it what was yet. He can't tell us what it is yet but IMO this is a strong hint that such panic was not necessary. There's really no other reason to post this to that feedback
6. The last time similar hints were dropped we got Infinite Archive
7. Devs have stated repeatedly that the number of vets who want this is smaller than the number of casuals and that the majority of players enjoy the story. Corporations are risk adverse
8. They already did forced difficulty increases without announcements. They walked some of it back (e.g. public dungeon boss in Silorn). Unlike those changes, this one was announced

I can't make a similar reason for why to believe it is forced because I frankly find it baffling that people are so certain this is what is happening. I think the most realistic assumption based on past evidence, which is the only evidence that we have since details are not forthcoming in the announcement, is that it will be optional. But someone else may make a list here.

Edit:

I'm going to leave this exchange here so you can see it for yourselves

I love this game and have subscribed for years but this will completely ruin the relaxing questing experience for me. I really don't understand why they would go back to something that came very close to killing this game, especially when it's a small minority asking for it. To say I'm stunned is a gross understatement.

The very least they could have done is make a difficulty slider so those of us that do not want more difficulty in the story wouldn't have our experience ruined. Especially when we were supporting sliders to enhance the enjoyment of those that wanted more difficulty, even though we didn't want it ourselves. It didn't have to be just one way or the other.

This is the most disappointed I have ever felt in all my years of playing.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

So we should note that we haven't announced what overland changes are yet. We'll have more information to share next year. We wanted to just note that there will be changes to overland difficulty generally. What form that takes will be shared next year.

SilverBride

I don't understand this:

2. They listed whatever happens under the systems/ideas category. All prior systems have been optional

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't understand this:

2. They listed whatever happens under the systems/ideas category. All prior systems have been optional

So the end of the year letter was broken down into particular categories. The list that included harder overland was given the following explanation

ZOS_MattFiror wrote: »

A new focus on change and experimentation  
We have been hearing from you, the community, that we need to experiment more, to shake things up and not be so predictable. The game needs new and different types of content, and for long-standing feedback to be addressed. We have already started on some ideas that will be tested in 2025. These systems and ideas will be clearly marked as "experiments" in patch notes and are ideas that may or may not be fleshed out into full game systems. With our new focus on breaking up content into seasons and away from years, it gives us time to do these experiments and changes.

Here are some of the ideas that we are working on, some of which you may see on the live servers as tests in 2025 and beyond. Some of these will be tests and some will be improvements based on player feedback: 

So the current information we have that this falls under systems/ideas and that it will be an experiment. And indeed the whole point of the experiment is to avoid working on things that aren't popular enough to be fleshed out into full systems.

I don't really see how an across the board difficulty fits into that concept. That's an enormous undertaking. It also does not fit with past precedent. Thus far gameplay changes under this "systems" category have been optional. That category was introduced right before Infinite Archive was made.

I can't know if history will repeat itself. But our historical precedent is that systems are optional.

SilverBride

I hope you are right.

peacenote

old_scopie1945 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

Options are optional.

No one said anything is going to be optional.

That's correct, I have seen no mention from ZOS of it being optional. Unfortunately ZOS does what ZOS wants to do. The Account Wide Achievements thing proves that point. It also highlights how much influence Content Creators have in these decisions and how little the rest of us have. At the end of the day they have ZOS's ear.

Those of us who where here at the start remember how hard the content was. Like many I jacked it in, only lasting six months. I remember how frustrating the game was and being an avid Elder Scrolls player how disappointed I was. The whole adventure was a dream come true. That dream turned into a nightmare. It wasn't until One Tamriel that I was tempted back.

The "Studio Director’s Letter" left me at first underwhelmed and then trepidation. All the points against harder overland content, IMO hold water.

I think you are right on the money here, regarding the harder overland content. This one worries me a lot, because in many ways, it's very much like AwA. The situation is nuanced. There are varied concerns and it is not a simple pro vs con situation. I don't even think it's a simple optional or not situation because imo it matters very much how that is done. Some ways might be ok, but some won't be good for the game overall even if it addresses the loudest feedback. Many people jump on this topic and only address one piece of the puzzle which further muddies the waters.

I am not concerned about everything in the letter, but this one thing gives me pause, because it seems like it would be an overwhelming amount of effort to do this right, in a way that includes the most playstyles/players, and because that would be difficult I fear it will be handled in a less nuanced fashion... which would be a repeat of AwA. I will hope for the best, of course.

tonyblack

It’s really nice to read that feedback from this thread finally going to be addressed.

I just hope it won’t go in the direction of more group content because the problem of difficulty comes not from lack of difficult group content but from complete absence of solo one, so far there are only 2 arenas, everything else either easy casual or group. Game really need something to progress as solo player, to be actually proud and satisfied to compete solo, reward your skills with something better than measly amount of gold and underpowered overland sets.

Cireous

• Increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat
• Experimenting with more zones like Craglorn (although not as large in area or scope), created exclusively for high-end group and soft-group content with associated gear chase
• Visually improving base game zones with updated textures and art assets, starting with the "starter islands" - these should start rolling out in March 2025

*Slowly awakens from a 3 year questing slumber. Are my lying eyes deceiving me? Is this really happening? Why did this info just hit me harder than the current world-wide fake alien invasion that's happening right now?

mocap

ESO has almost 2500 quests, many players stopped doing them back in Summerset days because of the primitive difficulty of questing. ZOS is trying to make quests interesting for everyone, not just casuals. What's wrong with that?

And for the trillionth time - difficulty will be OPTIONAL anyway. No one is going to force you to increase the difficulty.

colossalvoids

mocap wrote: »

ZOS is trying to make quests interesting for everyone, not just casuals. What's wrong with that?

Players that like the things the way they are currently thinking it's a wasted devs time, same as "we" think that time was completely wasted when the game was focusing solely on them lately. They can't even grasp the concept of why people asking for a change, even after pages upon pages of meticulous explanations. They're still bringing up Craglorn or people chaining mobs not engaging in combat, simply showing the lack of understanding.

TaSheen

mocap wrote: »

And for the trillionth time - difficulty will be OPTIONAL anyway. No one is going to force you to increase the difficulty.

Where does it say that in Matt's letter? Oh right - it doesn't. Remember how "optional" AWA was.... So yeah, I'm very skeptical.

colossalvoids wrote: »

Players that like the things the way they are currently thinking it's a wasted devs time, same as "we" think that time was completely wasted when the game was focusing solely on them lately. They can't even grasp the concept of why people asking for a change, even after pages upon pages of meticulous explanations. They're still bringing up Craglorn or people chaining mobs not engaging in combat, simply showing the lack of understanding.

I understand quite well that there are people who love challenge for its own sake. I'm not one of them; my entire life is a challenge, and I simply don't want challenge in a game I play to get AWAY from my real world challenging life.

Mind you, I don't have to play THIS game. I will miss it, but hey - leaving will save me a bundle of money. The only real issue is that I'm actually still playing the only other games I have any interest in - Skyrim and Oblivion. And as single player titles (even ones with gazoolas of player made content) they're very limited compared to ESO.

But that's the way things are.

colossalvoids

TaSheen wrote: »

mocap wrote: »

And for the trillionth time - difficulty will be OPTIONAL anyway. No one is going to force you to increase the difficulty.

Where does it say that in Matt's letter? Oh right - it doesn't. Remember how "optional" AWA was.... So yeah, I'm very skeptical.

colossalvoids wrote: »

Players that like the things the way they are currently thinking it's a wasted devs time, same as "we" think that time was completely wasted when the game was focusing solely on them lately. They can't even grasp the concept of why people asking for a change, even after pages upon pages of meticulous explanations. They're still bringing up Craglorn or people chaining mobs not engaging in combat, simply showing the lack of understanding.

I understand quite well that there are people who love challenge for its own sake. I'm not one of them; my entire life is a challenge, and I simply don't want challenge in a game I play to get AWAY from my real world challenging life.

Mind you, I don't have to play THIS game. I will miss it, but hey - leaving will save me a bundle of money. The only real issue is that I'm actually still playing the only other games I have any interest in - Skyrim and Oblivion. And as single player titles (even ones with gazoolas of player made content) they're very limited compared to ESO.

But that's the way things are.

That utterly interesting how we're going from the same exact places but with different approaches ultimately. Going a bit more esoteric rather than game design'y to me it's about regaining the control I lack in real life to a degree (apart of main thing for me being gameplay matching the narrative), be it lives of other around me, my own, my country's situation and how to survive it etc. But as far as empathy goes from both of our places there's always a compromise that could be struck there, like a different instance or a personal buffs/debuffs luckily. Awa was never meant to be optional and surely it wasn't an easy decision just erasing people's progress in one day.

spartaxoxo

AWA was never supposed to be optional because it was about performance. It had something to do with the database.

old_scopie1945

I agree with the SilverBride comment:- "Also, Overland is for the story. It is not a training ground for end game content."

There are some people who seem to think this game has some sort of compulsory form of basic training, such as recruits undergo in the army. I would like to point out that this is just a game that folk can enjoy in their own way. It is not up to others to determine how they should play. Believe it or not some of us don't care tuppence about high level end game or being a unicum.

Credible_Joe

old_scopie1945 wrote: »

I agree with the SilverBride comment:- "Also, Overland is for the story. It is not a training ground for end game content."

There are some people who seem to think this game has some sort of compulsory form of basic training, such as recruits undergo in the army. I would like to point out that this is just a game that folk can enjoy in their own way. It is not up to others to determine how they should play. Believe it or not some of us don't care tuppence about high level end game or being a unicum.

It shouldn't be compulsory, but it should definitely be there. Otherwise players that do want to participate in higher level content are punished with a huge technical cliff with absolutely no warning.

It's the same issue that games like Pokemon have. Kids breeze through the whole adventure with one pokemon, one attack, facerolling all the adversity because the game is designed around the assumed lowest possible skill level. Then, if they ever start believing the hype the game hands them for free, they'll show up at a tournament and leave in tears because it's an entirely different experience than what they were led to expect.

Teaching players through gameplay is game dev 101. If you don't do it, and put all the challenge at the very end, it's just frustrating.

Sure, if you want to play the basic adventure on easy mode, that should be an option. But insisting it has to be the only option is just asinine. Especially since there's content outside of basic adventure that requires a higher skill level and understanding of game mechanics.

disky

You stop paying attention for a few days and the whole world upends itself...

All of this is very exciting news. For the first time in a long time, I really have hope for ESO. I'm heartened by the choice to improve the base game and pull back on new chapters because there's really so much that can be done to create interesting content within the bounds of what we already have. Not to put words in the mouths of the dev team but the discussions we've had in this thread about more dynamic content could be a huge sea change for those zones and I hope that ZOS is also thinking along those lines. A visual update is SO INCREDIBLY WELCOME as well, so thank you for addressing this too, guys.

The difficulty increase in overland is obviously the biggest change for us here, and because it seems like ZOS has truly been listening I'd like to believe that they understand an optional change is the best way forward. I'm sure they also understand their demographics better than we ever will and so they know what a forced, global change would do to their subscription and retention numbers. I think this is a moment to give ZOS the benefit of the doubt, but I'm just going to say that as a person who loves and wants challenging overland, ZOS, please, for the sake of everyone, make it optional.

Personally I'd love a granular system which allows the player to choose a variety of difficulty elements like damage, but also things like stealth detection radius and elemental efficacy. No expectations for that of course. Thanks ZOS, for listening.

Arunei

I'll give ZOS the benefit of the doubt, but I do just want to reiterate that this is listed as one of the experimental things, things Rich has said may not wind up making it to the live game. I assume they'll decide what experimental things get added based on feedback and player engagement with stuff while it's in testing phase.

Thinking about it, these things might wind up on the live server for testing rather than the PTS, but might not STAY on the live server. So we might see increased difficulty hit the live servers but it may only be in a testing state and may not stay if it doesn't work out how they want or they don't have the engagement they're expecting.

SilverBride

disky wrote: »

The difficulty increase in overland is obviously the biggest change for us here, and because it seems like ZOS has truly been listening I'd like to believe that they understand an optional change is the best way forward. I'm sure they also understand their demographics better than we ever will and so they know what a forced, global change would do to their subscription and retention numbers.

They won't tell us until April if any changes are optional or not, so many of us are left wondering if our days in ESO are now numbered.

disky

SilverBride wrote: »

Not all content is going to meet everyone's play style so players should participate in what they enjoy and not try to change the parts that don't so that others don't lose what they enjoy in the process.

I'm not interested in having a back-and-forth with someone who chooses to act as if I disagree with them when I do not. Sometimes I feel as if you're just here to argue rather than discuss solutions. Just because the information may not be as clear as you would like, that doesn't mean it doesn't favor you and everyone else. You're dooming for no reason, SB.

SilverBride

disky wrote: »

I'm not interested in having a back-and-forth with someone who chooses to act as if I disagree with them when I do not. Sometimes I feel as if you're just here to argue rather than discuss solutions. Just because the information may not be as clear as you would like, that doesn't mean it doesn't favor you and everyone else. You're dooming for no reason, SB.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I agreed with what you said "I'd like to believe that they understand an optional change is the best way forward".

I was just adding my own concerns, because I am not confident that any changes will be optional. But I will edit my reply and give my concerns their own post to clear up any confusion.

Franchise408

I really don't understand the comments in this thread about stressing out casual players. Like, how are you actually defining a "casual" player?

I am 41 years old and have been gaming since I was 5. ESO's overland is hands down, far and away, the easiest game I have ever played. It is easy to the point of being tedious. I have played games of all varieties; MMO's, RPG's, FPS', Sports, RTS, 4x, fighter, really you name the genre and I've likely played a game in it. I have never played a game as easy as ESO's overland.

Even other games that I've played on easy mode or rookie mode (in the case of sports games) require some kind of active engagement with the game. ESO does not. People treat the overland as "flies on a bike ride" because overland requires no more engagement than that. Overland gameplay, as it stands, is something that I actively avoid. I dread being aggro'd by a mob because it's nothing more than a tedious activity. I decided a long time ago, really after Greymoor, that I will no longer play through story quests because of how mundane and boring it is. It's a complete waste of my time that is actively unenjoyable to play. Due to that, I now long in simply to do trials with my guild maybe a couple times a month. There isn't even a game to actually play in overland. There's no purpose to leveling up and getting stronger or coming up with different builds, because nothing is actually needed to play the game. There is no need to engage with the game's mechanics and game design because it is currently designed in such a way so as to not put any pushback on the player what so ever. If there is no reason to engage with the game's mechanics and designs, then there's no reason to play the game.

Yes, there is one person in this thread who talks about their inability to get through overland because of age and internet connection. This might be unpopular, but I don't believe that's who the game should be balanced around.

And casual gamers aren't so incompetent at gaming as to be stressed out by even minimal pushback from the game. If people are being stressed out by a difficulty higher than what overland currently provides, then perhaps gaming isn't the right hobby.

Nobody is asking for Dark Souls level difficulty in overland. Nobody is asking for vet trial level difficulty in overland. No one is asking for overland to be rebalanced in a way that it is no longer even the easiest content in the game. We are asking for an actual reason to do it. ESO is an MMORPG, and as an RPG, I am looking for a reason to build my character, level my character, gear up my character, and create a character with a unique set of skills and abilities to tackle the challenges of the game world. Overland gives me no reason to do any of that, as I don't even need to go through a rotation to clear an encounter. I don't need to have skills or abilities, so there's no purpose to leveling up to get them. I don't need to have the benefits that come with gear and sets, because overland doesn't need them to succeed. Overland doesn't allow me to actually play the character that I built and developed, and as such, overland doesn't actually allow me to play the entire purpose of the game.

I don't need overland to be Dark Souls level of challenge, but I do need some kind of reason or purpose to actually engage with it. I need it to give me an actual reason to build a character. You shouldn't need to farm a meta build to do overland, and I would agree with that, but there should be actual purpose to building my character to play through overland.

If having even the slightest bit of a challenge in a video game is stressful for you, idk what to say but I'd argue that's not the demographic the game should be balanced around. And quite frankly, I find it a bit insulting to those who might be considered "casual" to assume that they can't handle any form of challenge. Just because someone is "casual" doesn't mean they are incapable of playing a video game with even the mildest of degrees of challenge.

SilverBride

There are way more casual players, and players new to ESO, and players with physical limitations than there are end game players, and overland is all many of them have that they can enjoy.

And there are way more players that have been actively playing and subscribed for years that want overland left as it is than those that haven't played for a long time but say they will come back if overland is made more difficult.

Not all content is going to meet everyone's play style so players should participate in what they enjoy and not try to change the parts that don't so that others don't lose what they enjoy in the process.

spartaxoxo

The devs have stated in the past that people who prefer harder things are in the minority and that the vast majority of players enjoy the story and exploration part of the game (separate statements).

So, we actually do know that the people who want overland harder are in the minority.

What we don't know is if it's a large or small one. However, given the amount of dev resources and comments, I don't think there's any good reason to believe it is a small minority.

I don't think minority status matters. The devs need to serve their whole audience not just casuals. And they have already decided to do something based on the feedback here. We don't even know what it is yet.