Overland Content Feedback Thread

Attorneyatlawl

Kyip 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.

@ZOS_Kevin

Increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat

This will be the worst possible change the devs could possibly make. This game already has lots of challenging content for the people who want it. I cannot express strong enough how much this would make the game worse. Please leave this alone for all the people who enjoy it. Most of us like the ease of solo gameplay in overland zones.

It has challenging story content for veteran players?

disky

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

Kyip 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.

@ZOS_Kevin

Increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat

This will be the worst possible change the devs could possibly make. This game already has lots of challenging content for the people who want it. I cannot express strong enough how much this would make the game worse. Please leave this alone for all the people who enjoy it. Most of us like the ease of solo gameplay in overland zones.

It has challenging story content for veteran players?

We've seen this reaction a lot over the past couple of days. It seems to discount the notion that the change could be an option, and the devs have to take a little bit of the blame for it because they revealed their intention without being as clear as they should have been. I want an increased challenge in overland and I'm very excited, but I do think the reveal should have been a little more upfront, rather than just a bullet point, in order to assuage the fears that many people seem to be feeling.

spartaxoxo

Other people connect with the story better when they aren't distracted by combat. And they have no interest in group content, so they don't need to improve.

There is no need to force everyone to conform to just one way of play. And that goes both ways. Not everyone needs to play the same way or has the same idea of fun. This is a video game not a job.

disky

I do also want to reiterate something I said earlier - if the Craglorn-like zone that was mentioned in the letter is the entire plan for increased overland challenge, this is not a satisfactory implementation of an increase in overland challenge. I'm giving ZOS the benefit of the doubt here, and I really hope we aren't let down.

spartaxoxo

disky wrote: »

I do also want to reiterate something I said earlier - if the Craglorn-like zone that was mentioned in the letter is the entire plan for increased overland challenge, this is not a satisfactory implementation of an increase in overland challenge. I'm giving ZOS the benefit of the doubt here, and I really hope we aren't let down.

They listed them separately so I hope that means it won't be the case. But I have to concur that Crag 2.0 alone would be too little/too late.

alpha_synuclein

disky wrote: »

ZOS understands that the bulk of its players do not want an increased challenge and those people pay the bills.

Do they though? A lot of the responses in this thread are based on the assumption that ESO is standing on the shoulders of story driven casual questers and that putting a main focus elsewhere would be the end of the game (and we're hearing the same arguments against the idea of dropping the chapter format).

The more I stroll through DLC zones, the more difficult I find to believe that. Story content seems to be something that is mostly one and done. Of course there will be some players that would want to complete all the quest on all their alts (and make 20 alts), but when looking how most zones depopulate few months after chapter release (with a slight revival 1 year after, when the ESO plus people jump in) it doesn't seem like this playstyle is as massively popular as it seems. What actually keeps the game going is constant engagement and replayability.

Not so long ago we had a thread asking to scale Harrowstorms to single player, because they are difficult to solo and there are never people around to group with/seek help. And everyone who has been in Western Skyrim outside of the event can probably agree that the zone is rather empty. Except one part of it, and that's Kynes Aegis. According to ESOlogs, since the beginning of the recent update (November the 4th) Kynes aegis was cleared on PCEU on vet or HM by a team of 12 players 73 times. That 852 players (some of them will overlap, because the same team cleared multiple times or share players etc,). And these are only logged runs, so probably excluding most PUGs and excluding clears on normal. That is quite a lot of movement for an activity that is considered niche in ESO. When was the last time any of you seen few hundred players questing through Western Skyrim?

That is just one example, but it seems to make more sense to produce content that actually has the potential to live long than putting up zone after zone of super easy quests that most players will move on from rather quickly.

PS: I know this is a bit off topic, but this thread got me thinking, so I've put it here.

TaSheen

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Other people connect with the story better when they aren't distracted by combat. And they have no interest in group content, so they don't need to improve.

There is no need to force everyone to conform to just one way of play. And that goes both ways. Not everyone needs to play the same way or has the same idea of fun. This is a video game not a job.

Thank you.

thatnewcatsmell

'The bulk of the players do not want it' also has a huge survivorship bias. We don't know how many players ignore or leave ESO altogether because the bulk of its content is unengaging in terms of combat.

spartaxoxo

You won't see a few hundred in a zone at time for the same reason that you won't see a few hundred people in a trial at the same time. They have instances. ZOS breaks up the players in a shard when there's too many.

ZOS has made it pretty clear the vast majority of players enjoy story and exploration.

However, this does not mean that the game will die if they give us some optional way to increase difficulty.

colossalvoids

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ZOS has made it pretty clear the vast majority of players enjoy story and exploration.

However, this does not mean that the game will die if they give us some optional way to increase difficulty.

Especially if we'll remember that enjoying story and exploration or being a casual doesn't equal to enjoying things how they are currently difficulty-wise nor to the opposition for a "difficulty" whatever form it can take.

spartaxoxo

colossalvoids wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ZOS has made it pretty clear the vast majority of players enjoy story and exploration.

However, this does not mean that the game will die if they give us some optional way to increase difficulty.

Especially if we'll remember that enjoying story and exploration or being a casual doesn't equal to enjoying things how they are currently difficulty-wise nor to the opposition for a "difficulty" whatever form it can take.

Yup. Unlike some other vets in this thread, I actually do use overland. I enjoy the occasional walking sim type gameplay, especially when I want to play something but my hands are bothering too much to do anything difficult (sidenote: companions are such a gift for this). But, I also would be happier with a way to increase the difficulty as well. It is simply far more immersive when the end of the world thread isn't a push over for me.

Enjoying overland =/= wants no changes

colossalvoids

spartaxoxo wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ZOS has made it pretty clear the vast majority of players enjoy story and exploration.

However, this does not mean that the game will die if they give us some optional way to increase difficulty.

Especially if we'll remember that enjoying story and exploration or being a casual doesn't equal to enjoying things how they are currently difficulty-wise nor to the opposition for a "difficulty" whatever form it can take.

Yup. Unlike some other vets in this thread, I actually do use overland. I enjoy the occasional walking sim type gameplay, especially when I want to play something but my hands are bothering too much to do anything difficult (sidenote: companions are such a gift for this). But, I also would be happier with a way to increase the difficulty as well. It is simply far more immersive when the end of the world thread isn't a push over for me.

Enjoying overland =/= wants no changes

Agree. There's definitely a place for both, even for the same exact people depending on mood, task or a physical condition.

disky

alpha_synuclein wrote: »

Do they though?

Yes, we have been told by the devs that this is the case and I don't think they have an incentive to lie to us about it.

alpha_synuclein wrote: »

That 852 players

I don't really have a frame of reference to make a judgement on this, but 852 players doesn't seem like that many players. And just because you don't see players around in the zone you frequent (if you do in fact spend a lot of time there) that doesn't mean they aren't there where/when you aren't looking, and it doesn't mean they aren't just in some other zone somewhere. Zone populations are not evenly spread and they move based on events. The entirety of overland is incredibly huge.

I have provided my own ideas for ways to add dynamic and replayable zone content, and I agree that there is a failing to address this on ZOS' part. But people do spend time in overland.

colossalvoids

disky wrote: »

I don't really have a frame of reference to make a judgement on this, but 852 players doesn't seem like that many players.

Not to be that "but actually" person, but *actually* it's one tenth of a steam population currently logged in or sitting at the launcher screen. That's a few people who bought the game and if tot has a place despite a poor reception, thoughts of even 1k people makes sense and can be substantial enough? If those had a unison of thoughts, obviously, but there's no such thing in ESO for absolutely anything.

Ultimate bigger or smaller population matters not here, it's about making more different communities heard and comfortable in the end. Currently there's a lot of communities that feel abandoned for years already, that's never a good thing.

disky

colossalvoids wrote: »

disky wrote: »

I don't really have a frame of reference to make a judgement on this, but 852 players doesn't seem like that many players.

Not to be that "but actually" person, but *actually* it's one tenth of a steam population currently logged in or sitting at the launcher screen. That's a few people who bought the game and if tot has a place despite a poor reception, thoughts of even 1k people makes sense and can be substantial enough? If those had a unison of thoughts, obviously, but there's no such thing in ESO for absolutely anything.

Ultimate bigger or smaller population matters not here, it's about making more different communities heard and comfortable in the end. Currently there's a lot of communities that feel abandoned for years already, that's never a good thing.

We're talking about 852 people visiting a bit of content over the span of 52 days. I'm sorry but this is not a relevant comparison.

old_scopie1945

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Other people connect with the story better when they aren't distracted by combat. And they have no interest in group content, so they don't need to improve.

There is no need to force everyone to conform to just one way of play. And that goes both ways. Not everyone needs to play the same way or has the same idea of fun. This is a video game not a job.

On board with that. What is it, oh yes "play as you want" is, I believe the ESO mantra, if I am correct. Enough said, that's it in a nut shell.

alpha_synuclein

spartaxoxo wrote: »

You won't see a few hundred in a zone at time for the same reason that you won't see a few hundred people in a trial at the same time. They have instances. ZOS breaks up the players in a shard when there's too many.

True, but outside of events I cannot recall seeing anything even remotely close to too many in any of the older DLC zones. Outside of the crafting cities most zones barely have players. I understand the concept of instance, but it feels like we have bunch of zones that should have much more players that are there.

disky wrote: »

I don't really have a frame of reference to make a judgement on this, but 852 players doesn't seem like that many players. And just because you don't see players around in the zone you frequent (if you do in fact spend a lot of time there) that doesn't mean they aren't there where/when you aren't looking, and it doesn't mean they aren't just in some other zone somewhere. Zone populations are not evenly spread and they move based on events. The entirety of overland is incredibly huge.

Overland is indeed incredibly huge. That was a bit of my point. It's so huge that the playerbase is so spread out that many players complain about stuff being too hard to do solo when there is not enough people around. I wasn't the one making those complains. I was only implying that if they keep focusing on creating more and more new zones it will only get worse, especially if overland becomes more difficult.

As for the trial. Yes, this number is not huge. But it represents a subpopulation and what I was trying to show was that this part of an old zone is still quite populated, especially in comparison with the rest of Western Skyrim. And the activity in trials don't fluctuates that much. So investing in this type of content might be more of a steady thing than creating another zone that eventually will spread players even thinner.

disky

alpha_synuclein wrote: »

Overland is indeed incredibly huge. That was a bit of my point. It's so huge that the playerbase is so spread out that many players complain about stuff being too hard to do solo when there is not enough people around. I wasn't the one making those complains. I was only implying that if they keep focusing on creating more and more new zones it will only get worse, especially if overland becomes more difficult.

I'm not sure if you're trying to start a back-and-forth with me for the sake of it, but I think that if you go back and read some of this thread, you will understand my position a little better. I'm happy they're not introducing more zones. I want them to improve what we have. I want optional challenging overland. There is no need for you make these points to me.

The reason I said "and these people pay the bills" is because it's true, and because it's better for everyone if we find ways of coexisting rather than trying to defeat one another in a silly and unnecessary zero-sum game. I generally want what you want, but it's not in our best interest to try and force out those who might not agree with us. It's detrimental, in fact.

alpha_synuclein

disky wrote: »

We're talking about 852 people visiting a bit of content over the span of 52 days. I'm sorry but this is not a relevant comparison.

I would hypothesize that if we compare the number of players in Kynes with the number of people that visit Western Skyrim and spend more than hour there doing actual content (something except writs and visiting guild traders) it would probably brake even.
Not too bad for an activity that apparently barely anyone wants to do.

Also, just to clarify, I'm not really advocating in favor of harder overland everywhere and for everyone (I would welcome some danger zones though).
I just really don't like the "you can't have that, because I don't want this and I am/my group is paying for the game!" attitude.

Edited for spelling.

old_scopie1945

I am lucky, at 79 I find overland a breeze and can solo base game dungeons that are solo-able. If I can in one or two years, if I am still around, who knows. That does not mean that I am without limitations. I have to play with my hands strapped up after too many years of gaming. In DLC dungeons my reactions are noticeably slower, I am always the last in the team and if there is a speed merchant I am cooked. Mechanics are very quickly forgotten when not done regularly and my mind is inclined to wander.

That is why I only do DLC dungeons for gear and why I only use one bar builds these days. The Okensoul Ring was a blessing and helped me to keep going. I only buy monster heads so as not to do vet dungeons. I mostly ignore overland trash mobs but let Amber deal with them as a bit of entertainment. They are inclined to be a distraction.

That being said I adamantly believe in the ZOS mantra "to play as you want", and I am vehemently against those that want to impose their will and style on others. Though I don't think it will happen, it is why I am so opposed to a blanket increase in difficulty in overland. Who knows where the demand will lead to next. I don't care what the majority of do's and don'ts want, IMO it is just wrong.

alpha_synuclein

disky wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're trying to start a back-and-forth with me for the sake of it, but I think that if you go back and read some of this thread, you will understand my position a little better. I'm happy they're not introducing more zones. I want them to improve what we have. I want optional challenging overland. There is no need for you make these points to me.

The reason I said "and these people pay the bills" is because it's true, and because it's better for everyone if we find ways of coexisting rather than trying to defeat one another in a silly and unnecessary zero-sum game. I generally want what you want, but it's not in our best interest to try and force out those who might not agree with us. It's detrimental, in fact.

I am not trying to start anything. Your comment was what got me thinking and it illustrates well the approach that I was commenting on, that is all.

As for the thread, I have read it (most if not all I think), but it's incredibly long and I honestly cannot recall who was saying what over the years.

SilverBride

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

I hope some increase in overland isn't optional so that people learn how to play better...

People should play how they want to play and meet the goals they set for themselves. They do not have to meet anyone else's expectations.

Franchise408

disky wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

disky wrote: »

I don't really have a frame of reference to make a judgement on this, but 852 players doesn't seem like that many players.

Not to be that "but actually" person, but *actually* it's one tenth of a steam population currently logged in or sitting at the launcher screen. That's a few people who bought the game and if tot has a place despite a poor reception, thoughts of even 1k people makes sense and can be substantial enough? If those had a unison of thoughts, obviously, but there's no such thing in ESO for absolutely anything.

Ultimate bigger or smaller population matters not here, it's about making more different communities heard and comfortable in the end. Currently there's a lot of communities that feel abandoned for years already, that's never a good thing.

We're talking about 852 people visiting a bit of content over the span of 52 days. I'm sorry but this is not a relevant comparison.

It's one trial out of the many in game, so I'd say it's pretty significant.

Franchise408

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Other people connect with the story better when they aren't distracted by combat. And they have no interest in group content, so they don't need to improve.

There is no need to force everyone to conform to just one way of play. And that goes both ways. Not everyone needs to play the same way or has the same idea of fun. This is a video game not a job.

I agree with the point that this is a video game, not a job. I believe in a game having a variety of things to do and a variety of ways to play it, which is one of the reasons why I so love the Elder Scrolls series, and why ESO is so important to me even if it has never fully lived up to my expectations for an Elder Scrolls game.

That being said, a game is best when it picks a direction and commits to it.

While I did highly enjoy Elden Ring, I typically do not enjoy Souls style games all that much. While some people really appreciate the challenge those games present, I feel the challenge presented is one that is more of a cheap level of challenge that I generally don't find fun, although I do appreciate much of the other elements of the game design.

I would never want even an optional "easy mode" in those games, because their entire purpose is to cater to the audience that desires a higher degree of challenge, and I appreciate the game being what it is unapologetically.

While I am not asking for mandatory vet trial level content in overland, and I do believe that overland should be a degree easier than the rest of the content designed for higher challenge, I feel that ESO would be a far better game if it committed to an actual vision other than "we don't want to isolate players". One of my biggest drawbacks from ESO from the time I was in beta, all the way up to now, is that it never felt like it had a vision. It was always just "generic MMO" with an Elder Scrolls skin on it, and it feels designed in a way to maximize profits and revenue over being a quality game. While I understand that it is a business, and revenue and profits are the motivator for all gaming companies, there is still a difference in games that are developed with a clear vision to make as good a game as possible, and those that are just there to generate revenue.

As an MMO, the game should be designed in a way to attract as many players as possible. As an Elder Scrolls game, I do believe that there should be a whole variety of ways to engage with the game for gamers with different play styles. I do not believe in metas, and even as a vet level end gamer, I do not adhere to meta builds even for my organized guild vet trial runs, and I disagree with metas even moreso in things like overland.

However, I do believe that the game suffers from an overall lack of quality due to things like fear of alienation of certain players that may not be capable of or may not want any semblance of challenge or difficulty in a video game. I do believe that the game suffers from an overall lack of quality by treating "casual" gamers as babies and children who are incapable of any sort of problem solving or obstacle overcoming. In the case of overland, I do believe that the game suffers from a HUGE lack of quality in the fact that all you have to do to "beat" it is to show up. This game design of "all you need to do is turn the game on and you win, don't worry you don't have to overcome anything you're just a winner" instead of a true vision holds ESO back from being a great MMO, and instead, is a rather average, maybe above average MMO. Quality wise, the game would benefit massively from having its own vision, its own identity, rather than just "the Elder Scrolls MMO".

The greatest MMO's I have ever played have had their own identity, something about them that was unique that made them stand out from the rest of the pack. Same goes for the greatest games I have ever played, period. With ESO, I don't see an identity, I see the same generic MMO design and mechanics from any other MMO, just with an Elder Scrolls skin.

The overall problem with ESO is something that's bigger than just overland difficulty, in my eyes, but overland content is absolutely a part of that issue. The game is so afraid of turning away absolutely anyone that it refuses to commit to any sort of vision. For fear of turning away "easy mode" gamers, they've left overland to be nothing more than "show up and win" for years. There's no identity to the game when one doesn't even have to engage with it to "beat" it.

Again, I'm not asking for overland to become vet trial level difficulty, that would be absolutely absurd. But even if it is a "forced" tuning of difficulty, I don't think asking players to do more than spamming 1 skill 3-5 times to kill a boss in whatever random gear you found off trash mobs is too much of an ask. I don't think that asking players to have to actually engage with the systems of the game to be too much of an ask. And if that turns away some players, well, so be it, that's what happens. You'll never please everyone, and some people just won't like your game. But when you try to please everyone, you'll end up pleasing nobody. Sometimes you need to commit to a vision, and commit to the audience that you are targeting.

KingNutella

As for concerns about optional veteran overland splitting the population, Im not sure I totally buy it. I mean sure, it might, but what does it matter?

On normal maps, I find it very hard to believe that you even need another person (especially now that companions are in game) to complete 90% of the map. Main exceptions being world bosses (which are very much manageable in the base game with some practice) and incursions which are designed to be group events anyway (anchors are quite manageable too). Thus, an empty map really shouldn't be an issue for players that prefer solo gameplay/gathering etc. Wouldn't affect questing either.

Those who want to play on veteran maps can have that choice and be more likely to run into and engage with a similar-minded player there. The presence of a player who prefers/only plays the easiest content would, respectfully, probably make no difference in a vet overland anyway.

colossalvoids

On a completely different note, after playing some Path of Exile 2 I've noticed one interesting system there. When you're lagging - or server is, the instance also stops until you're getting your connection back so you're not getting mowed down when dealing with high ping, household connection etc. Whilst ESO is an MMO, some parts of it aren't that far from a mostly single player game, like overland main story instances with bosses, which are an issue for some players. Using something similar to that system might help few folks to have a fair chance and add developers an ability to not balance it around people with insane connection issues and overall improve the game.

KingNutella

Also, the idea that a vet overland isn't deserved because "casuals" are the ones paying for the game is incredibly disrespectful and that kind of dismissive attitude is part of what has led to a diminished endgame PvE community (who almost certainly paid towards the game). Most of my friends and myself have paid for most if not all expansions and/or have kept ESO+ active for months to years at a time.

Also, I think this conversation often turns into "casuals" (overwhelming amount of players who supposedly struggle to take down the 10-20k HP npcs they've been fighting since lvl 3) vs hard-core players who run Trifectas. What about the middle ground??? The balanced players, which I would consider myself to be a part of. Those of us who enjoy some challenging content but don't achievement hunt or min-max or grind to clear the hardest hard mode trial in the game. Are players like me really so few and insignificant? My experience in game is the opposite, but reading these forums you'd think that 80% of the population were "casuals" who either struggle in the current overland or are perfectly satisfied with it.

Again, I (like almost everyone making sweeping statements here) don't have the data to say anything absolutely, but anecdotally, many of my friends don't engage with the overland and certainly don't see a reason to group up because it's the most boring gameplay available in the game.

It is quite staggering seeing opinions here compared to hearing the very common complaints among players in game and also opinions shared by many major content creators who clearly resonate with a lot of players.

DeathStalker

I truly believe that if a harder difficulty of any amount is forced on people, then many people (myself included) will stop playing as much or completely.

DenverRalphy

disky wrote: »

DenverRalphy wrote: »

disky wrote: »

DenverRalphy wrote: »

I would personally welcome an increase in difficulty for Overland content. It's long overdue. And I don't want to see it optional. No difficulty sliders. Just straight up boost the difficulty.

When anybody, even brand new players, can just truck across any overland zone training all the mobs into one giant pile then turn around at their leisure to kill them all without breaking a sweat, there's something inherently wrong. What ever happened to there being an actual reason you may need to stick to the roadways because otherwise you run the risk of running into something more challenging that you're ready to handle?

But why does it matter what someone else is doing or what their experience is? Shouldn't you only care about your experience? So what if they're racing through a zone, they aren't affecting you in any way other than that you can see them, and if that's such a big issue then you have a problem with MMOs, not just ESO overland.

Because I'd rather not have my accomplishments diminished by the fact that at any time it can be done without a challenge.

But then too, I don't believe in "Participation Trophies" either.

I can't say with 100% certainty that you will never be satisfied, but I'm pretty sure you're just not going to get anything like what you're asking for. ZOS understands that the bulk of its players do not want an increased challenge and those people pay the bills. I would encourage you not to worry so much about what other people do with their time and prioritize your own enjoyment of the game instead.

Bolded for emphasis...

I don't buy that for one second. Exactly where are you pulling this information from?

Arunei

I've never understood the mindset of wanting others to struggle to accomplish something in a game just so one can feel 'strong'. How others play the game and whether they achieve any given thing or not, they don't affect your own ability. Demanding that others need to have their ability to play the game negatively impacted just so you feel good about what you've accomplished is...I'm sorry it's selfish, and it feels like a game like an MMO isn't the sort of game to play with that mindset.

Not everything needs to be a grueling struggle to accomplish even the most basic of things. Overland doesn't need to be some grand challenge just so someone feels like their "efforts" seem validated because they're able to do it but most others struggle. It's a game not a competition to see who can do what and who can't.

Edit to add this is in response to another post. I was gonna quote it but I hit the Last button on accident and couldn't remember what page the comment was on or the name of who posted it so...