Overland Content Feedback Thread

BasP · December 23

barney2525 wrote: »

So long as players start their posts by telling everyone else What the game is supposed to be, without so much as an " In My Opinion ", people ARE trying to shame players that have differing opinions into following their orders.

To be fair, it goes the other way around as well. When the topic is a more difficult Overland, many have made blanket statements like 'No one would use it' or 'Nobody likes the difficult World Bosses/World Events that are already in the game' and so on.

barney2525 wrote: »

Their primary, Number One goal is this : To Make as Much Money As Possible. Just like ANY business. And you make the Most Money by offering a game that can be enjoyed by ALL personal preferences and play styles.

Yeah, which is why it's great to hear that ZOS is looking into increasing Overland's difficulty (and I can't imagine this change not being optional). For years, a not-insignificant number of 'veteran' players have asked for a more challenging Overland experience - some of whom even stopped playing the game because they found it too easy. Interestingly, that sentiment isn't limited to veterans; just this month, several negative Steam reviews from new players mentioned Overland being too easy as a drawback.

So, when it comes to Overland content, ZOS hasn't really catered to all preferences and playstyles for a long time, and may have missed out on some potential revenue because of it.

barney2525 wrote: »

Players get tired of being told ( Not by the Company, but by Other Players ) HOW they must play the game.

Agreed. Over the years, players who felt that Overland was too easy - and sometimes suggested optional ways to increase its difficulty - were often told by other players that they 'must do Dungeons/Trials/solo Arenas instead' because 'Overland is supposed to be easy.' Comments like that didn't really address the issue or helped foster a constructive discussion.

In essence, I agree with your post by the way. But I think it’s important to recognize that it goes both ways. While some players now fear that they might not be able to enjoy Overland content in the future, other players haven't been able to enjoy it for years. Respecting all playstyles is key.

disky · December 23

Arunei wrote: »

snip

The new Crag-like is coming per the letter, but if that's the planned solution to overland challenge then it's not a solution I consider valuable even though it is also welcome. When I say that I want grouping to make a difference, I don't need it to be life or death, I just want it to feel like the other players can actually help rather than just making things faster. I've said it before but as my level increases I don't ever want to feel godlike or overpowered, I want access to more tools which suit my playstyle. Which means that if I'm not too strong, more players matter, and when there are more elements of the game that matter, that's good for me. Hitting the sweet spot for this is tough which is why I really want a granular challenge system that allows the player to select the challenge elements which suit them best, though I doubt it will ever be implemented in this way.

I wouldn't mind a death debuff, but I wasn't thinking about it and I'd bet that almost nobody would want it. That's a very delicate thing to tackle from a development perspective with little return on investment. I really just feel like fewer soul gems would be enough, because needing to think about that resource is good for me, and running out means you are punished in the form of lost time. It may also force you to wait for player assistance which is another grounding element. I feel like it's way too easy to acquire soul gems and scarcity would dramatically alter the way you play the game. It would also add far more importance and value to the Soul Magic skill line and associated Champion Point nodes. More consequential choices to consider! Good for me.

SilverBride · December 23

BasP wrote: »

Over the years, players who felt that Overland was too easy - and sometimes suggested optional ways to increase its difficulty - were often told by other players that they 'must do Dungeons/Trials/solo Arenas instead' because 'Overland is supposed to be easy.'

It wasn't just players saying that.

spartaxoxo · December 23

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I agree with barney2525. Opinions should be stated as opinions and not facts.

Saying "Overland is too easy" presents it as a fact, but it isn't. It's a personal preference.

However saying "I find Overland too easy for how I like to play" clearly states that this is the player's personal view and is much less likely to meet pushback.

Easy is subjective so it's not presenting it as a fact. Overland is too easy is simply direct. The latter is nicer in some cultures but is not how a person would speak in others. Direct speech =/= fact.

I disagree. Even just saying "I find Overland too easy" is much more clear that an opinion is being given. Because Overland is not too easy for many players and hearing it stated as fact just stirs up defensive feelings.

"Overland is not too easy for many players" is no different than "Overland is too easy for many players", IMO. I don't have a problem with either, it's just how people talk. I think that when using an international forum, it's important to keep in mind that a wide variety of cultures are using it as well. And that what is considered polite speech in one culture would not even cross someone else's mind to say in another.

Textual communication does not have the benefit of body language, tone of voice, and other indicators that someone is not being aggressive. So, it is generally considered polite to NOT assume someone is being rude unless they explicitly state something rude.

If someone finds themselves getting defensive at what someone is communicating because they did something like used the word "should" or left off the word "IMO" one should back away and re-read later. You'll often find that it is not the writers intentions at all. I just used the forum search tool on the word "should" for example, and almost every single last one was from someone who explicitly stated that they wanted everything to be optional. I actually didn't see one case that was the opposite but I might have missed some as it was only a quick glance.

People wanting overland difficulty to be forced is simply not a popular opinion.

SilverBride · December 23

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I disagree. Even just saying "I find Overland too easy" is much more clear that an opinion is being given. Because Overland is not too easy for many players and hearing it stated as fact just stirs up defensive feelings.

"Overland is not too easy for many players" is no different than "Overland is too easy for many players", IMO. I don't have a problem with either, it's just how people talk. I think that when using an international forum, it's important to keep in mind that a wide variety of cultures are using it as well. And that what is considered polite speech in one culture would not even cross someone else's mind to say in another.

Textual communication does not have the benefit of body language, tone of voice, and other indicators that someone is not being aggressive. So, it is generally considered polite to NOT assume someone is being rude unless they explicitly state something rude.

This is why we need to be more precise and accurate, so our statements aren't misinterpreted.

Also, no one said that anyone was being rude or aggressive. And there are no rules of etiquette for how anyone perceives something. How we react to what we perceive, yes, but we feel however we feel.

spartaxoxo · December 23

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Textual communication does not have the benefit of body language, tone of voice, and other indicators that someone is not being aggressive. So, it is generally considered polite to NOT assume someone is being rude unless they explicitly state something rude.

This is why we need to be more precise and accurate, so our statements aren't misinterpreted.

Also, no one said that anyone was being rude or aggressive. And etiquette has nothing to do with how someone perceives what anyone else says.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141125212408-10714894-email-tone-often-misinterpreted

Etiquette does have to do with whether or not we show others grace, they even teach this in professional settings. I actually first heard this point from a job.

Also, yes they did. They said players are shaming others

SilverBride · December 23

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Textual communication does not have the benefit of body language, tone of voice, and other indicators that someone is not being aggressive. So, it is generally considered polite to NOT assume someone is being rude unless they explicitly state something rude.

This is why we need to be more precise and accurate, so our statements aren't misinterpreted.

Also, no one said that anyone was being rude or aggressive. And etiquette has nothing to do with how someone perceives what anyone else says.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141125212408-10714894-email-tone-often-misinterpreted

Etiquette does have to do with whether or not we show others grace, they even teach this in professional settings. I actually first heard this point from a job.

Also, yes they did. They said players are shaming others

I did edit my post to say how we react to our perceptions is goverened by etiquette, but not our perceptions themselves. (I edit a lot to make sure I am stating things in a way that won't be misinterpreted.)

Some others have felt like players were being shamed, and honestly I feel talked down to by posts that tell players we just need to get better and then we could handle a more difficult overland.

spartaxoxo · December 23

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Textual communication does not have the benefit of body language, tone of voice, and other indicators that someone is not being aggressive. So, it is generally considered polite to NOT assume someone is being rude unless they explicitly state something rude.

This is why we need to be more precise and accurate, so our statements aren't misinterpreted.

Also, no one said that anyone was being rude or aggressive. And etiquette has nothing to do with how someone perceives what anyone else says.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141125212408-10714894-email-tone-often-misinterpreted

Etiquette does have to do with whether or not we show others grace, they even teach this in professional settings. I actually first heard this point from a job.

Also, yes they did. They said players are shaming others

I did edit my post to say how we react to our perceptions is goverened by etiquette, but not our perceptions themselves. (I edit a lot to make sure I am stating things in a way that won't be misinterpreted.)

Some others have felt like players were being shamed, and honestly I feel talked down to by posts that tell players we just need to get better and then we could handle a more difficult overland.

It's both. While we can't completely control our immediate emotions, we can try to keep certain things in mind to better help inform and shape them. Over time, this can result in our being better able to be emotionally equipped to handle certain environments.

For example, most of the "getting better" feedback has been about the onboarding ramp for new players learning how to play the game. Overland actually doesn't do a good job of teaching the mechanics of the game because they're unneeded. Many players actually struggle to break free, roll dodge, bash, etc. A lot of this IS taught in normal dungeons but even then it's mostly the dlc ones.

It isn't directed at vet players being told to get good so they can enjoy vet overland. I actually have seen very little posts like that.

Kyip · December 23

Just posting here to say that I found the discussion in https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/670971 to be very constructive, based on the perspective of a player who spends lots of time and money here, yet needs the current overland difficulty level where it is. I found that discussion insightful. I think it was unhelpful for the moderator to shut it down and point here, where the conversation sprawls all over the place, going back to 2021. That topic shouldn't have been locked. It is one of many cases recently where I find myself wishing we had a 'disagree' reaction option, specifically for mods shutting down topics that provided value where they were.

SilverBride · December 23

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I did edit my post to say how we react to our perceptions is goverened by etiquette, but not our perceptions themselves. (I edit a lot to make sure I am stating things in a way that won't be misinterpreted.)

It's both. While we can't completely control our immediate emotions, we can try to keep certain things in mind to better help inform and shape them. Over time, this can result in our being better able to be emotionally equipped to handle certain environments.

I do not agree and I am not going to continue arguing the point. So let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

TaSheen · December 23

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Textual communication does not have the benefit of body language, tone of voice, and other indicators that someone is not being aggressive. So, it is generally considered polite to NOT assume someone is being rude unless they explicitly state something rude.

This is why we need to be more precise and accurate, so our statements aren't misinterpreted.

Also, no one said that anyone was being rude or aggressive. And etiquette has nothing to do with how someone perceives what anyone else says.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141125212408-10714894-email-tone-often-misinterpreted

Etiquette does have to do with whether or not we show others grace, they even teach this in professional settings. I actually first heard this point from a job.

Also, yes they did. They said players are shaming others

I did edit my post to say how we react to our perceptions is goverened by etiquette, but not our perceptions themselves. (I edit a lot to make sure I am stating things in a way that won't be misinterpreted.)

Some others have felt like players were being shamed, and honestly I feel talked down to by posts that tell players we just need to get better and then we could handle a more difficult overland.

It's both. While we can't completely control our immediate emotions, we can try to keep certain things in mind to better help inform and shape them. Over time, this can result in our being better able to be emotionally equipped to handle certain environments.

For example, most of the "getting better" feedback has been about the onboarding ramp for new players learning how to play the game. Overland actually doesn't do a good job of teaching the mechanics of the game because they're unneeded. Many players actually struggle to break free, roll dodge, bash, etc. A lot of this IS taught in normal dungeons but even then it's mostly the dlc ones.

It isn't directed at vet players being told to get good so they can enjoy vet overland. I actually have seen very little posts like that.

I've had that pointed directly at me. Several times. In fact, I do not care to "get better" because I have less than zero interest in anything beyond story quests and overland. I am SO DONE with dungeons, raids, pvp etc - done for over a decade.

I will see what we hear in April. I've already canceled my subs. One of them (my oldest account) runs through October '25. I may renew my second oldest account monthly for a few months - until I see how things are going. The other two I will play as free accounts if I play them at all.

BananaBender · December 23

Going to talk about mainly quests here. ↓
I feel like the yearly release of large zones being the major selling point for expansions and the game as a whole is one of the biggest reasons for why we are in this situation to begin with, which makes me all the more excited to see ZoS drop it. Currently the design has been for new players and returning players alike, to start with the new story straight away. Of course the quests and encounters will be designed around this model. But this results in the main story lines feeling like tutorials for anyone experienced, because that's kinda what they are. Sure there is the actual tutorial, which still fails to highlight major key points in the game, but usually in games the first zone after the tutorial is also very beginner friendly, which is also the case in ESO. Here it just applies to every single expansion, and every single zone with the exception of Craglorn.

So basically we are stuck in a situation where every zone is aimed to be beginner friendly, and the whole map is lacking structure or a form of progression. I know for some this is a huge positive thing, but it comes at the cost of being extremely underwhelming for anyone who progresses past the beginner phase. To me it's such a shame as well, because I love the world and generally enjoy the quests (apart every NPC talking to the vestige like they would to a child), the new areas look absolutely amazing, but I just can't enjoy the quests anymore since all the quests feel like they could be intro quests.

BananaBender · December 23

Kyip wrote: »

Just posting here to say that I found the discussion in https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/670971 to be very constructive, based on the perspective of a player who spends lots of time and money here, yet needs the current overland difficulty level where it is. I found that discussion insightful. I think it was unhelpful for the moderator to shut it down and point here, where the conversation sprawls all over the place, going back to 2021. That topic shouldn't have been locked. It is one of many cases recently where I find myself wishing we had a 'disagree' reaction option, specifically for mods shutting down topics that provided value where they were.

I do agree that it is a bit silly that every topic that includes the word 'overland' gets moved here, because it leads to this thread being just a massive pile of conversations where multiple people might be posting at the same time on completely different things...

AlterBlika · 02:18

Tbh it's disappointing that devs don't see the core of the problem - unnecessary buffs every patch that eventually rendered all older content irrelevant. They aren't making overland really difficult anyway. In maybe two years we will be once again asking for a more difficult overland thanks to powercreep.