Overland Content Feedback Thread

CP5

Again, the biggest reasons why I feel instancing works best is because the behavioral changes to npcs would be the most direct way of dealing with the ways that they fail to engage experienced players, while operating in a system that's already used regularly to do exactly that.

When I do something like run Blackrose, I sometimes willfully let a taking aim hit because I'm just used to the attack doing nothing, and die for it. Damage alterations alone could be done outside of instances, but the bigger reason why the Blackrose archers do well is because their allies are a big enough threat and last long enough to buy them the time to get off the shot. This is something that enemies in overland don't have, and bleeds into the quest boss encounters as well.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

Damage alterations alone could be done outside of instances, but the bigger reason why the Blackrose archers do well is because their allies are a big enough threat and last long enough to buy them the time to get off the shot. This is something that enemies in overland don't have, and bleeds into the quest boss encounters as well.

This is one reason I do think that people underestimate just how much scaling can be impactful. I remember I used to fear take aim, and even now it makes my heart skip a beat as I reflexively look around for who to interrupt because I never unlearned that despite that threat long ago passed. I was way way weaker back then so enemies did have enough time to dust me.

When there's a bigger group of mobs and they aren't dying quickly (and it can actually 1 shot you) that skill is stressful. I think there's a lot of stuff that players now can so easily ignore because mobs die too quickly for the really dangerous stuff to be difficult to stop, if it even triggers at all.

A lot of those delays are there under the assumption you'll need time to prevent the skill from taking place because it represents a serious risk for you, but because everything is so easy to kill it doesn't actually accomplish that and just makes the mob even weaker. If they did have that time to get it off and hit hard enough to kill you, I think it would pose a significantly different experience.

tonyblack

Reading through all the replies I feel like most of the points repeating themselves. It was mentioned by a lot of players in same discussion what kind of challenge they would expect, what rewards they wanted. It was discussed quite extensively what upsides and downsides instances vs debuffs include and with the same people no less in this and in different topics as well, meaning our arguments and counter arguments didn’t convince each other. If this discussion can be moved in any productive way it would be helpful to know what solutions are viable and what are out of the question, otherwise it’s back and forth arguments with no impact or meaningful contribution.

tonyblack

A small thing I could add to previously made points of other players: I really want to face more enemies that are memorable and have impactful attacks, which force you to pay attention to combat. Cyrodiil guards (menders, archers, mages, elite guards), aurorian knights, xivilai ravagers and shockslayers, crematorial guards are some of the examples of such enemies.

If some of the basic enemies could be replaced with reskins of the ones I mention (at least for vet mode) it would be a huge improvement for combat encounters. I’m not sure how viable it is for the old content but facing same mages and warriors with dumb 2014 AI and outdated skills in new DLCs is such a let down and no amount of debuffs would make them interesting.

I also really like the idea with new game+ as it was my choice of how to enjoy Dark Souls and Sekiro without meaningless burden such as calamity ring. It added extra challenge, better rewards and additional replay value to these games in a fun way.

Sparxlost

Ive heard people say that they wanted pve to be a bit more difficult and here is what i would say

First would be to add more mechanic to the game giving enemies respective resistances. a good example of this is probably to make most dwarven mechanical enemies immune to being set on fire...

This would be amazing because then you would be encouraged to build your character to be able to easier farm certain areas for drops or to slot out different element type spells or weapons/enchants to fit the occasion

that being said adding these kinds of mechanics to dungeons and trials as well might be gamebreaking for some players

i imagine most regular enemies would have one type of resistance making it so some types of damage are less favorable in certain zones save for some odd bosses here and there.

then there would be bosses with resistances to multiple things which would make the preferred requirements to farm more exclusive and maybe increasing the value of items dropped from that boss or zone

this might seem to be too hard for newer players now that i think about it

Lysette

Sparxlost wrote: »

Ive heard people say that they wanted pve to be a bit more difficult and here is what i would say

First would be to add more mechanic to the game giving enemies respective resistances. a good example of this is probably to make most dwarven mechanical enemies immune to being set on fire...

This would be amazing because then you would be encouraged to build your character to be able to easier farm certain areas for drops or to slot out different element type spells or weapons/enchants to fit the occasion

that being said adding these kinds of mechanics to dungeons and trials as well might be gamebreaking for some players

i imagine most regular enemies would have one type of resistance making it so some types of damage are less favorable in certain zones save for some odd bosses here and there.

then there would be bosses with resistances to multiple things which would make the preferred requirements to farm more exclusive and maybe increasing the value of items dropped from that boss or zone

this might seem to be too hard for newer players now that i think about it

would still be possible, if the level of the player is factored in - like 2% effectiveness of the enemy resistance per level - starting with just 2% more resistance for a new player - being 50% for a level 25 - and full resistance for a level 50 player. I personally like the idea, because it makes it more interesting to figure out which enemies are vulnerable to what - then again, some might not get it - witcher 3 solved this with having a bestiary, where you could find info about beasts you encountered.

What stands against this idea though, is the very limited weapon choice we have due to just having 2 bars - in other games we can slot a variety of weapons to hot keys and switch quite easily between them - this is not the same in ESO and could make this cumbersome.

Parasaurolophus

tomofhyrule wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

But if they were to go down the path of a vet mode with one difficulty, then I still think it should be vma difficulty. Not because I dislike healers or tanks but because there really isn't a lot of content for solo builds looking for that level of challenge. Tanks and healers should be able to get completes much slower so I'm not necessarily in favor of a dps check in the fashion of vvh's ghost tether mech, but that level of difficulty is good. And as you demonstrated, perfectly completable by tanks and healers.

But the ghost tether is not completable by tanks and healers

Oh... Look, this has already been discussed somewhere, not in this thread. But tanks and healers are only group support roles. Without a group, being a tank or a healer is completely pointless. I understand if the content forces players to balance between survivability and damage, like in pvp. But in pve in eso it's completely different. There is no point in being more survivable for an overland because it is trivial.
Also, solo arenas could be more survivable, but that would make veteran versions of the arena just not passable for even more players. Experience shows that ZoS cannot make heals more relevant even for group content for four people. HM Stone Garden is too difficult for the average player. vTDC without HM was nerfed because it was impassable without a healer. Now it ends without a healer with the pugs group.

Ronin37

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

But if they were to go down the path of a vet mode with one difficulty, then I still think it should be vma difficulty. Not because I dislike healers or tanks but because there really isn't a lot of content for solo builds looking for that level of challenge. Tanks and healers should be able to get completes much slower so I'm not necessarily in favor of a dps check in the fashion of vvh's ghost tether mech, but that level of difficulty is good. And as you demonstrated, perfectly completable by tanks and healers.

But the ghost tether is not completable by tanks and healers

Oh... Look, this has already been discussed somewhere, not in this thread. But tanks and healers are only group support roles. Without a group, being a tank or a healer is completely pointless. I understand if the content forces players to balance between survivability and damage, like in pvp. But in pve in eso it's completely different. There is no point in being more survivable for an overland because it is trivial.
Also, solo arenas could be more survivable, but that would make veteran versions of the arena just not passable for even more players. Experience shows that ZoS cannot make heals more relevant even for group content for four people. HM Stone Garden is too difficult for the average player. vTDC without HM was nerfed because it was impassable without a healer. Now it ends without a healer with the pugs group.

Seeing as how the rest of the game is going it makes sense they are moving everything to dps. It's the easiest and most straight forward thing to do in this game. Already too many people in here are complaining that making things less trivial is a disaster to their personal playstyle. Imagine if the holy trinity was truly enforced in this game. It would completely confuse them and shatter their well being.

Sylvermynx

Ronin37 wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

But if they were to go down the path of a vet mode with one difficulty, then I still think it should be vma difficulty. Not because I dislike healers or tanks but because there really isn't a lot of content for solo builds looking for that level of challenge. Tanks and healers should be able to get completes much slower so I'm not necessarily in favor of a dps check in the fashion of vvh's ghost tether mech, but that level of difficulty is good. And as you demonstrated, perfectly completable by tanks and healers.

But the ghost tether is not completable by tanks and healers

Oh... Look, this has already been discussed somewhere, not in this thread. But tanks and healers are only group support roles. Without a group, being a tank or a healer is completely pointless. I understand if the content forces players to balance between survivability and damage, like in pvp. But in pve in eso it's completely different. There is no point in being more survivable for an overland because it is trivial.
Also, solo arenas could be more survivable, but that would make veteran versions of the arena just not passable for even more players. Experience shows that ZoS cannot make heals more relevant even for group content for four people. HM Stone Garden is too difficult for the average player. vTDC without HM was nerfed because it was impassable without a healer. Now it ends without a healer with the pugs group.

Seeing as how the rest of the game is going it makes sense they are moving everything to dps. It's the easiest and most straight forward thing to do in this game. Already too many people in here are complaining that making things less trivial is a disaster to their personal playstyle. Imagine if the holy trinity was truly enforced in this game. It would completely confuse them and shatter their well being.

Wouldn't bother me - I've been playing "holy trinity" games since the mid-70s.... In general, I've done tank only in WoW - because for a while my hunter and her pet were the only tank my family guild had, since I was the only one for a long time who had the time to figure out tanking. Then my nephew got out of school, and turned out to be one hell of great tank, so I got to go back to DD, which is what I've generally always played. I've never been interested in healing....

I do have some characters here set up more tanky lately, because overland with my ping and aging reflexes is NOT trivial for me, but I'd never actually tank (or even do group content at all) in this game.

Lysette

Ronin37 wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

But if they were to go down the path of a vet mode with one difficulty, then I still think it should be vma difficulty. Not because I dislike healers or tanks but because there really isn't a lot of content for solo builds looking for that level of challenge. Tanks and healers should be able to get completes much slower so I'm not necessarily in favor of a dps check in the fashion of vvh's ghost tether mech, but that level of difficulty is good. And as you demonstrated, perfectly completable by tanks and healers.

But the ghost tether is not completable by tanks and healers

Oh... Look, this has already been discussed somewhere, not in this thread. But tanks and healers are only group support roles. Without a group, being a tank or a healer is completely pointless. I understand if the content forces players to balance between survivability and damage, like in pvp. But in pve in eso it's completely different. There is no point in being more survivable for an overland because it is trivial.
Also, solo arenas could be more survivable, but that would make veteran versions of the arena just not passable for even more players. Experience shows that ZoS cannot make heals more relevant even for group content for four people. HM Stone Garden is too difficult for the average player. vTDC without HM was nerfed because it was impassable without a healer. Now it ends without a healer with the pugs group.

Seeing as how the rest of the game is going it makes sense they are moving everything to dps. It's the easiest and most straight forward thing to do in this game. Already too many people in here are complaining that making things less trivial is a disaster to their personal playstyle. Imagine if the holy trinity was truly enforced in this game. It would completely confuse them and shatter their well being.

I would just close the chapter of TES and Bethesda in a whole for good - and be done with it - there are other companies who want to earn some money and they have marvelous games as well. TES was with me for 2 decades, but ESO will be the last Elder Scrolls for me - if it would be messed up, there would be no reason for me to stick with Zenimax.

everseeing_njpreub18_ESO

Way to many to read-

I agree with any "options" for individuals to make their own play harder, it has to be per character/account, not everyone wants or can manage "hard-mode all the time".

I do tend to walk through basic enemies far to often, they feel more like a delay in progress that any sort of threat.

On bosses i will intentionally hold back abilities and pause between attacks to let the fights last longer. An option/food/debuff to weaken me/strengthen them would be nice to have some level of threat feel when i want it.

CP5

tonyblack wrote: »

A small thing I could add to previously made points of other players: I really want to face more enemies that are memorable and have impactful attacks, which force you to pay attention to combat. Cyrodiil guards (menders, archers, mages, elite guards), aurorian knights, xivilai ravagers and shockslayers, crematorial guards are some of the examples of such enemies.

If some of the basic enemies could be replaced with reskins of the ones I mention (at least for vet mode) it would be a huge improvement for combat encounters. I’m not sure how viable it is for the old content but facing same mages and warriors with dumb 2014 AI and outdated skills in new DLCs is such a let down and no amount of debuffs would make them interesting.

I also really like the idea with new game+ as it was my choice of how to enjoy Dark Souls and Sekiro without meaningless burden such as calamity ring. It added extra challenge, better rewards and additional replay value to these games in a fun way.

The mage tower guards at resources in Black Water Blade back in the day. Drop that shock field and nuke whole raids. Still focus them down first, just out of revenge mostly.

silvereyes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I spent an embarrassingly long time trying to click Next on that image and wondering how the heck I ended up back on page 1.

EvilAutoTech

I would prefer vet instances. It might divide some of the population, but I think that would be temporary. I remember how empty silver and gold were prior to 1 Tamriel.

Sylvermynx

EvilAutoTech wrote: »

I would prefer vet instances. It might divide some of the population, but I think that would be temporary. I remember how empty silver and gold were prior to 1 Tamriel.

I've actually come to believe that's the best option as well.

tonyblack

EvilAutoTech wrote: »

I would prefer vet instances. It might divide some of the population, but I think that would be temporary. I remember how empty silver and gold were prior to 1 Tamriel.

Tbh the only argument against it i find convincing is cost related, but it’s for devs to decide how to reduce it and the solution can be done in so many different ways to avoid other problems. Updated zone chat functionality could be helpful to that and would provide benefit not only for vet vs normal but also grouping for dailies, dungeons and trials and with it concerns about separation become unjustified.

Tornaad

tonyblack wrote: »

EvilAutoTech wrote: »

I would prefer vet instances. It might divide some of the population, but I think that would be temporary. I remember how empty silver and gold were prior to 1 Tamriel.

Tbh the only argument against it i find convincing is cost related, but it’s for devs to decide how to reduce it and the solution can be done in so many different ways to avoid other problems. Updated zone chat functionality could be helpful to that and would provide benefit not only for vet vs normal but also grouping for dailies, dungeons and trials and with it concerns about separation become unjustified.

If cost was not an issue, would you still have problems with it? And assuming that server stability efforts will remain the same either way, where would you rather see the money be put?

Lysette

Zuboko wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

EvilAutoTech wrote: »

I would prefer vet instances. It might divide some of the population, but I think that would be temporary. I remember how empty silver and gold were prior to 1 Tamriel.

Tbh the only argument against it i find convincing is cost related, but it’s for devs to decide how to reduce it and the solution can be done in so many different ways to avoid other problems. Updated zone chat functionality could be helpful to that and would provide benefit not only for vet vs normal but also grouping for dailies, dungeons and trials and with it concerns about separation become unjustified.

If cost was not an issue, would you still have problems with it? And assuming that server stability efforts will remain the same either way, where would you rather see the money be put?

The latter question is seen from ZOS perspective quite easy to decide - should the money go into something, which benefits just a minority at most, but a lot of them will still be unhappy, because they all have a quite different idea of what challenge they want, if they have an idea at all - or the other option, invest it in something what has been very successful and where the revenue und profit can be safely estimated - what do you think they will be going for?

Tornaad

Lysette wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

EvilAutoTech wrote: »

I would prefer vet instances. It might divide some of the population, but I think that would be temporary. I remember how empty silver and gold were prior to 1 Tamriel.

Tbh the only argument against it i find convincing is cost related, but it’s for devs to decide how to reduce it and the solution can be done in so many different ways to avoid other problems. Updated zone chat functionality could be helpful to that and would provide benefit not only for vet vs normal but also grouping for dailies, dungeons and trials and with it concerns about separation become unjustified.

If cost was not an issue, would you still have problems with it? And assuming that server stability efforts will remain the same either way, where would you rather see the money be put?

The latter question is seen from ZOS perspective quite easy to decide - should the money go into something, which benefits just a minority at most, but a lot of them will still be unhappy, because they all have a quite different idea of what challenge they want, if they have an idea at all - or the other option, invest it in something what has been very successful and where the revenue und profit can be safely estimated - what do you think they will be going for?

So part of your argument against the idea of more difficult overland content is that you feel it is just a minority that would benefit from it? Is that a fair assessment?

SilverBride

Zuboko wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

The latter question is seen from ZOS perspective quite easy to decide - should the money go into something, which benefits just a minority at most, but a lot of them will still be unhappy, because they all have a quite different idea of what challenge they want, if they have an idea at all - or the other option, invest it in something what has been very successful and where the revenue und profit can be safely estimated - what do you think they will be going for?

So part of your argument against the idea of more difficult overland content is that you feel it is just a minority that would benefit from it? Is that a fair assessment?

I believe she is correct.

This is why more economical solutions have been suggested and supported.

spartaxoxo

Zuboko wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

EvilAutoTech wrote: »

I would prefer vet instances. It might divide some of the population, but I think that would be temporary. I remember how empty silver and gold were prior to 1 Tamriel.

Tbh the only argument against it i find convincing is cost related, but it’s for devs to decide how to reduce it and the solution can be done in so many different ways to avoid other problems. Updated zone chat functionality could be helpful to that and would provide benefit not only for vet vs normal but also grouping for dailies, dungeons and trials and with it concerns about separation become unjustified.

If cost was not an issue, would you still have problems with it? And assuming that server stability efforts will remain the same either way, where would you rather see the money be put?

The latter question is seen from ZOS perspective quite easy to decide - should the money go into something, which benefits just a minority at most, but a lot of them will still be unhappy, because they all have a quite different idea of what challenge they want, if they have an idea at all - or the other option, invest it in something what has been very successful and where the revenue und profit can be safely estimated - what do you think they will be going for?

So part of your argument against the idea of more difficult overland content is that you feel it is just a minority that would benefit from it? Is that a fair assessment?

Well, the developers themselves actually cited that as one of their reasons for not doing anything at all. I personally don't agree that the developers should act like this is not a problem and do nothing just because it affects a minority of their playerbase, personally. But I did try suggest ideas that could help that were lower impact because I feel right now it's a struggle to get anything done at all, unfortunately. It feels like every year they find a way new way to say "no" to this, but I don't think they should leave us with nothing. Just being a minority segment doesn't mean it's an extremely tiny segment.

Like for example if we assumed that say 2/3rds of the playerbase likes things as they are now, that would still be like a third of the playerbase unhappy. That's both a minority and sizable number that shouldn't be ignored.

OFC casuals are the ones that make up the majority of pretty much every online game. I know that. But hardcore players are the ones that give your game buzz, they are the ones that write up all the guides and create a ton of the fan content. They are a valuable segment of the playerbase too. Even if we can't reasonably expect new and vet zones for all past expansions and the new ones, they could at least like give us some debuffs or an occasional adventure zone or something.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Even if we can't reasonably expect new and vet zones for all past expansions and the new ones, they could at least like give us some debuffs or an occasional adventure zone or something.

And who knows? If they do give some of those things and find they are successful that may prompt them to do more.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Even if we can't reasonably expect new and vet zones for all past expansions and the new ones, they could at least like give us some debuffs or an occasional adventure zone or something.

And who knows? If they do give some of those things and find they are successful that may prompt them to do more.

Absolutely. Like what if say a brand new adventure zone in Black Marsh ends up being wildly popular? And what if it turns out people actually like it more than the typical dungeon DLC release and spend even more money on it? Well, then they can add it to the rotation each year/every other year, and suddenly we got a really cool and fun break from the regular release schedule!

If they are so scared of cost and usage, start out small! It doesn't have to be all or nothing!

Lysette

Zuboko wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

EvilAutoTech wrote: »

I would prefer vet instances. It might divide some of the population, but I think that would be temporary. I remember how empty silver and gold were prior to 1 Tamriel.

Tbh the only argument against it i find convincing is cost related, but it’s for devs to decide how to reduce it and the solution can be done in so many different ways to avoid other problems. Updated zone chat functionality could be helpful to that and would provide benefit not only for vet vs normal but also grouping for dailies, dungeons and trials and with it concerns about separation become unjustified.

If cost was not an issue, would you still have problems with it? And assuming that server stability efforts will remain the same either way, where would you rather see the money be put?

The latter question is seen from ZOS perspective quite easy to decide - should the money go into something, which benefits just a minority at most, but a lot of them will still be unhappy, because they all have a quite different idea of what challenge they want, if they have an idea at all - or the other option, invest it in something what has been very successful and where the revenue und profit can be safely estimated - what do you think they will be going for?

So part of your argument against the idea of more difficult overland content is that you feel it is just a minority that would benefit from it? Is that a fair assessment?

my argument is that you don't know what you want nor would you even care to find a solution for that - but leave it to ZOS to figure that out - but as long as you don't have a common ground, how difficult it should actually be, this is a task for ZOS which is likely to make pretty much no one happy - you don't put in any effort at all to declare how difficult you want it, nor would there be any consent at all - this is set up for failure therefore and ZOS would be silly to even consider it.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

EvilAutoTech wrote: »

I would prefer vet instances. It might divide some of the population, but I think that would be temporary. I remember how empty silver and gold were prior to 1 Tamriel.

Tbh the only argument against it i find convincing is cost related, but it’s for devs to decide how to reduce it and the solution can be done in so many different ways to avoid other problems. Updated zone chat functionality could be helpful to that and would provide benefit not only for vet vs normal but also grouping for dailies, dungeons and trials and with it concerns about separation become unjustified.

If cost was not an issue, would you still have problems with it? And assuming that server stability efforts will remain the same either way, where would you rather see the money be put?

The latter question is seen from ZOS perspective quite easy to decide - should the money go into something, which benefits just a minority at most, but a lot of them will still be unhappy, because they all have a quite different idea of what challenge they want, if they have an idea at all - or the other option, invest it in something what has been very successful and where the revenue und profit can be safely estimated - what do you think they will be going for?

So part of your argument against the idea of more difficult overland content is that you feel it is just a minority that would benefit from it? Is that a fair assessment?

my argument is that you don't know what you want nor would you even care to find a solution for that - but leave it to ZOS to figure that out - but as long as you don't have a common ground, how difficult it should actually be, this is a task for ZOS which is likely to make pretty much no one happy - you don't put in any effort at all to declare how difficult you want it, nor would there be any consent at all - this is set up for failure therefore and ZOS would be silly to even consider it.

I want it to be as difficult as VMA

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

EvilAutoTech wrote: »

I would prefer vet instances. It might divide some of the population, but I think that would be temporary. I remember how empty silver and gold were prior to 1 Tamriel.

Tbh the only argument against it i find convincing is cost related, but it’s for devs to decide how to reduce it and the solution can be done in so many different ways to avoid other problems. Updated zone chat functionality could be helpful to that and would provide benefit not only for vet vs normal but also grouping for dailies, dungeons and trials and with it concerns about separation become unjustified.

If cost was not an issue, would you still have problems with it? And assuming that server stability efforts will remain the same either way, where would you rather see the money be put?

The latter question is seen from ZOS perspective quite easy to decide - should the money go into something, which benefits just a minority at most, but a lot of them will still be unhappy, because they all have a quite different idea of what challenge they want, if they have an idea at all - or the other option, invest it in something what has been very successful and where the revenue und profit can be safely estimated - what do you think they will be going for?

So part of your argument against the idea of more difficult overland content is that you feel it is just a minority that would benefit from it? Is that a fair assessment?

my argument is that you don't know what you want nor would you even care to find a solution for that - but leave it to ZOS to figure that out - but as long as you don't have a common ground, how difficult it should actually be, this is a task for ZOS which is likely to make pretty much no one happy - you don't put in any effort at all to declare how difficult you want it, nor would there be any consent at all - this is set up for failure therefore and ZOS would be silly to even consider it.

I want it to be as difficult as VMA

ok, so it seem to be balanced for CP 300 - will this make a CP 1200 happy? or will it again be too easy? and what about those with even more CP?

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

EvilAutoTech wrote: »

I would prefer vet instances. It might divide some of the population, but I think that would be temporary. I remember how empty silver and gold were prior to 1 Tamriel.

Tbh the only argument against it i find convincing is cost related, but it’s for devs to decide how to reduce it and the solution can be done in so many different ways to avoid other problems. Updated zone chat functionality could be helpful to that and would provide benefit not only for vet vs normal but also grouping for dailies, dungeons and trials and with it concerns about separation become unjustified.

If cost was not an issue, would you still have problems with it? And assuming that server stability efforts will remain the same either way, where would you rather see the money be put?

The latter question is seen from ZOS perspective quite easy to decide - should the money go into something, which benefits just a minority at most, but a lot of them will still be unhappy, because they all have a quite different idea of what challenge they want, if they have an idea at all - or the other option, invest it in something what has been very successful and where the revenue und profit can be safely estimated - what do you think they will be going for?

So part of your argument against the idea of more difficult overland content is that you feel it is just a minority that would benefit from it? Is that a fair assessment?

my argument is that you don't know what you want nor would you even care to find a solution for that - but leave it to ZOS to figure that out - but as long as you don't have a common ground, how difficult it should actually be, this is a task for ZOS which is likely to make pretty much no one happy - you don't put in any effort at all to declare how difficult you want it, nor would there be any consent at all - this is set up for failure therefore and ZOS would be silly to even consider it.

I want it to be as difficult as VMA

ok, so it seem to be balanced for CP 300 - will this make a CP 1200 happy? or will it again be too easy? and what about those with even more CP?

Yes. It would. VMA casts the widest net as the most difficult content outside of it is group content, so it should make a pretty wide swath happy. CP only matters so much.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

EvilAutoTech wrote: »

I would prefer vet instances. It might divide some of the population, but I think that would be temporary. I remember how empty silver and gold were prior to 1 Tamriel.

Tbh the only argument against it i find convincing is cost related, but it’s for devs to decide how to reduce it and the solution can be done in so many different ways to avoid other problems. Updated zone chat functionality could be helpful to that and would provide benefit not only for vet vs normal but also grouping for dailies, dungeons and trials and with it concerns about separation become unjustified.

If cost was not an issue, would you still have problems with it? And assuming that server stability efforts will remain the same either way, where would you rather see the money be put?

The latter question is seen from ZOS perspective quite easy to decide - should the money go into something, which benefits just a minority at most, but a lot of them will still be unhappy, because they all have a quite different idea of what challenge they want, if they have an idea at all - or the other option, invest it in something what has been very successful and where the revenue und profit can be safely estimated - what do you think they will be going for?

So part of your argument against the idea of more difficult overland content is that you feel it is just a minority that would benefit from it? Is that a fair assessment?

my argument is that you don't know what you want nor would you even care to find a solution for that - but leave it to ZOS to figure that out - but as long as you don't have a common ground, how difficult it should actually be, this is a task for ZOS which is likely to make pretty much no one happy - you don't put in any effort at all to declare how difficult you want it, nor would there be any consent at all - this is set up for failure therefore and ZOS would be silly to even consider it.

I want it to be as difficult as VMA

ok, so it seem to be balanced for CP 300 - will this make a CP 1200 happy? or will it again be too easy? and what about those with even more CP?

Yes. It would. VMA casts the widest net as the most difficult content outside of it is group content, so it should make a pretty wide swath happy. CP only matters so much.

Do you think (real question, because I have no idea about this kind of content) that ZOS could make an estimate how many will be likely using it, based on the usage of VMA currently in regards to the total amount of veterans >= 300CP? Or is that too special to base a decision about possible user numbers on this?

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

EvilAutoTech wrote: »

I would prefer vet instances. It might divide some of the population, but I think that would be temporary. I remember how empty silver and gold were prior to 1 Tamriel.

Tbh the only argument against it i find convincing is cost related, but it’s for devs to decide how to reduce it and the solution can be done in so many different ways to avoid other problems. Updated zone chat functionality could be helpful to that and would provide benefit not only for vet vs normal but also grouping for dailies, dungeons and trials and with it concerns about separation become unjustified.

If cost was not an issue, would you still have problems with it? And assuming that server stability efforts will remain the same either way, where would you rather see the money be put?

The latter question is seen from ZOS perspective quite easy to decide - should the money go into something, which benefits just a minority at most, but a lot of them will still be unhappy, because they all have a quite different idea of what challenge they want, if they have an idea at all - or the other option, invest it in something what has been very successful and where the revenue und profit can be safely estimated - what do you think they will be going for?

So part of your argument against the idea of more difficult overland content is that you feel it is just a minority that would benefit from it? Is that a fair assessment?

my argument is that you don't know what you want nor would you even care to find a solution for that - but leave it to ZOS to figure that out - but as long as you don't have a common ground, how difficult it should actually be, this is a task for ZOS which is likely to make pretty much no one happy - you don't put in any effort at all to declare how difficult you want it, nor would there be any consent at all - this is set up for failure therefore and ZOS would be silly to even consider it.

I want it to be as difficult as VMA

ok, so it seem to be balanced for CP 300 - will this make a CP 1200 happy? or will it again be too easy? and what about those with even more CP?

Yes. It would. VMA casts the widest net as the most difficult content outside of it is group content, so it should make a pretty wide swath happy. CP only matters so much.

Do you think (real question, because I have no idea about this kind of content) that ZOS could make an estimate how many are using it, based on the usage of VMA currently in regards to the total amount of veterans >= 300CP? Or is that too special to base a decision about possible user numbers on this?

VMA is actually pretty specialized but I imagine there would be a lot of overlap between those who like VMA and those want this, so it could be a decent indicator.

Quests are solo content and most requests I have seen want it to remain as such. And VMA is the most popular of the hard solo activities of which there is precious little. So seeing who had vma weapons before the change and how popular vma still is would probably be a decent indication.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

EvilAutoTech wrote: »

I would prefer vet instances. It might divide some of the population, but I think that would be temporary. I remember how empty silver and gold were prior to 1 Tamriel.

Tbh the only argument against it i find convincing is cost related, but it’s for devs to decide how to reduce it and the solution can be done in so many different ways to avoid other problems. Updated zone chat functionality could be helpful to that and would provide benefit not only for vet vs normal but also grouping for dailies, dungeons and trials and with it concerns about separation become unjustified.

If cost was not an issue, would you still have problems with it? And assuming that server stability efforts will remain the same either way, where would you rather see the money be put?

The latter question is seen from ZOS perspective quite easy to decide - should the money go into something, which benefits just a minority at most, but a lot of them will still be unhappy, because they all have a quite different idea of what challenge they want, if they have an idea at all - or the other option, invest it in something what has been very successful and where the revenue und profit can be safely estimated - what do you think they will be going for?

So part of your argument against the idea of more difficult overland content is that you feel it is just a minority that would benefit from it? Is that a fair assessment?

my argument is that you don't know what you want nor would you even care to find a solution for that - but leave it to ZOS to figure that out - but as long as you don't have a common ground, how difficult it should actually be, this is a task for ZOS which is likely to make pretty much no one happy - you don't put in any effort at all to declare how difficult you want it, nor would there be any consent at all - this is set up for failure therefore and ZOS would be silly to even consider it.

I want it to be as difficult as VMA

ok, so it seem to be balanced for CP 300 - will this make a CP 1200 happy? or will it again be too easy? and what about those with even more CP?

Yes. It would. VMA casts the widest net as the most difficult content outside of it is group content, so it should make a pretty wide swath happy. CP only matters so much.

Do you think (real question, because I have no idea about this kind of content) that ZOS could make an estimate how many are using it, based on the usage of VMA currently in regards to the total amount of veterans >= 300CP? Or is that too special to base a decision about possible user numbers on this?

VMA is actually pretty specialized but I imagine there would be a lot of overlap between those who like VMA and those want this, so it could be a decent indicator.

Quests are solo content and most requests I have seen want it to remain as such. And VMA is the most popular of the hard solo activities of which there is precious little. So seeing who had vma weapons before the change and how popular vma still is would probably be a decent indication.

Ok, this is promising, because ZOS needs a way to estimate the user numbers to make a decision about if it is worth the effort or not. Now another question - what if pvp performance would be much better by end of this year - will this still be popular, or will people just go back to pvp and this would have been just a temporary band aid - I think that this is something ZOS is anxious about, that they put in effort and in the end it will not get the user numbers to justify the effort made.