How would you address the Challenge Difficulty issue?

FabresFour · April 9

The problem is clear: the moment a player on the highest difficulty encounters a player on the lowest difficulty, it can create an EXTREMELY frustrating situation. After all, you’ve been pushing yourself hard against an enemy, spending a good amount of time whittling down its health, and you’ve finally reached that critical 20% phase… And then a player on the base difficulty lands a single hit and finishes off the entire encounter.

The goal of this thread is to explore possible solutions to this issue.

I understand that, due to server limitations, ESO cannot create multiple instances of delves, overland zones, or public dungeons based on difficulty, as that would be too demanding. I also recognize that implementing something like this before the launch of Challenge Difficulty in June is highly unlikely. With that in mind, the focus here is on ideas that could improve the system in future updates.

Here are a couple of solutions I’ve been considering:

1) Overland remains shared, while instanced content adapts through phasing

Overland content would remain unchanged, preserving the core MMORPG experience. However, delves and public dungeons could use a phasing system similar to what we see in Bleakrock Isle, where players occupy different versions of the same space depending on their progression, with noticeable environmental and NPC changes.

Instead of story progression, these phases would represent difficulty levels. In Bleakrock, players transition between phases seamlessly, without loading screens. A similar approach could potentially be applied to instanced content elsewhere in the game. If necessary, this separation could be limited to the Vestige difficulty tier, where the impact of high-damage players is most disruptive.

2) Combat-based difficulty assignment per enemy

When a player engages an enemy, that enemy adopts the attacker’s difficulty settings for all subsequent participants in that encounter.

In practice, if a Vestige player initiates combat, the enemy becomes “flagged” under Vestige difficulty. Any other player who joins the fight would then be subject to the same difficulty modifiers for that specific enemy. While this wouldn’t prevent high-damage players from clearing entire areas quickly, it would ensure that enemies already engaged by a higher-difficulty player are not trivialized.

This approach would likely require significant development effort. It essentially creates a “first engagement claim” system, where the initial attacker determines the difficulty context of the fight. Mechanically, this could be implemented in a way similar to how trial target buffs are applied.

These are the ideas I’ve come up with so far. Have you considered any other approaches?

Malyore · April 9

I would have made the central gameplay more than just "don't stand in red."

That would probably help to make overland quest combat more engaging and not have as much demand for difficulty adjustments.

mocap · April 9

2) Combat-based difficulty assignment per enemy

Like this idea. However, Vestige boss shouldn't deal 7x damage to a player with difficulty disabled, it should only reduce their damage by 80%.

Or just leave it as is. I rarely see other players at story bosses. It feels like some of those areas are already instanced.

Major_Mangle · April 9

Overland (non instances) difficulty works in games like lotro because the combat system and power fantasy is very different (lotro has a much slower less aggressive powerscaling in the earlier sections of the game) and maybe the most important part: The world is much much bigger.

ESO world/overland is generally very tiny which tends to squeeze people into few areas. I've said it in the past but overland difficulty in ESO doesn't add anything meaningful the way the game is designed. It will be unavoidable with people playing on lower difficulties to pseudo "grief" those who wants more of a challenge.

Also serves zero reason to add a difficulty slider without adding any meaningful rewards (more exp and gold aren't "rewards" in my book). The feature should've cooked for another patch or two.

msgeek · April 9

I think option 1 would have issues....

everyone starts a boss farm on easiest difficulty, clears it, switches difficulty up one notch rinse and repeat, no waiting for boss re-spawn.

I like the idea of 2. player damage shouldn't be nerfed just HP buffed (to the same effect the dmg nerf has), and boss dmg buffed.

The rewards are pointless for me atm (3600cp) so doubt i'll get much use out of it in it's current iteration but can understand why they'd want to implement with minimal rewards to test/review before giving us the juicy stuff.

I think 2 would also avoid the situation where higher difficulty players are carried by lower to farm the higher rewards, which would be an issue in how the system is currently envisioned. Just need to ensure a clear indicator of a given fights difficulty is visible.

randconfig · April 9

Show an icon above the boss + players name indicating the increased difficulty, and if the player on adventurer difficulty joins in the fight, it automatically puts them in the same difficulty as the fight.

Seems simple enough to me.

Zodiarkslayer · April 9

Here is the solution: Don't use Vestige difficulty in Overland!

Anyone who wants to challenge himself can go to an instanced encounter and "enjoy" higher difficulties there, if they want to. That whole idea of different players fighting the same enemy on different difficulties was flawed from the inception.

spartaxoxo · April 9

I think I will give it an actually fair chance before declaring something extremely frustrating.

This slider is for providing a challenge to story content. And most enemies that would actually pose a real challenge are already instanced. The delves and public dungeons are the main exceptions and there is enough of them that outside of events and when new updates drop, I find the likelihood that I can kill a boss alone to be pretty common.

This game is an MMO not a single player game. I don't expect to always be able to kill things alone or be the strongest person in the area. The game already works with multiple people in an area because most people understand that.

I think initially the slider won't work well because there will be floods of people in the areas trying it out. And then a few weeks later it will be fine outside of events and when things are brand new. Which is nothing new. Dragons were trivial during the Elsweyr event but remain difficult and enjoyable content now. Kind of hard to make any enemy strong against 20+ people if it doesn't dynamically scale. That has nothing to do with it during normal gameplay time and won't have anything to do with the slider.

ESO_player123 · April 9

#2 was proposed and discussed several times here already.
Personally, I'm against any form of tagging. Consider 2 scenarios:
1. Regular mobs: easy-mode player tags everything in sight leaving hard-mode player with nothing.
2. Bosses: hard-mode player tags the boss making easy-mode player choose between doing it on a more challenging mode that they did not sign up for or just sitting there and waiting while the hard-mode player "whittles down" the boss.
None of these are good options.

Edit: I do not see this really working unless we have instances of different difficulties.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · April 9

I would have made specific hard endgame zones just like we used to have back at launch.

The current implementation is a huge waste of dev hours. It will be readily exploited and barely engaged with outside of a few vocal players and whatever golden pursuits are imposed to force some interaction with the system.

Mashille · April 9

I think they need to do away with the 4 difficulty options and have have 2. "Normal" Overland and "Veteran" Overland. Then have 2 entirely separate server instances for them so there is no risk of exploiting or any of this other random nonsense where players will be on different difficulties.

I don't understand their extreme reluctance to have more than 1 world instance, at launch all overland content had 3 separate instances, 1 each faction, and it was fine.

Overland content is a joke, it barely qualifies as "playing" a game.

I'm reluctant to get my friends to try the game as I know if we play as a group going round the overland, no one will have any fun because we'll kill everything in less than a second and we won't have to do engage with or actually think about the combat or the game-play what so ever. It happened with Guild Wars 2, content was so easy in the starter zones people were barely paying attention while playing and the game didn't grip them as they didn't even need to think about what buttons to press in any combat encounter.

spartaxoxo · April 9

Mashille wrote: »

I don't understand their extreme reluctance to have more than 1 world instance, at launch all overland content had 3 separate instances, 1 each faction, and it was fine.

It wasn't fine. It almost killed the game. They almost failed as a company because of it and other issues. Ensuring that their MMO actually had people around to play with saved it. This doesn't mean they couldn't potentially do something similar that addresses the issues with the first go around (like only being able to play with your own faction) but the reason for the extreme hesitancy is that the launch version of this was a collosal failure. And they have been very explicit about that.

It took years of advocating for a toggle to get them to consider any difficulty at all because they were like no, we tried that at launch and it was a failure. And we had to relaunch the game.

The launch version had a lot of issues besides being a separated instance that arguably is why it failed. But, nevertheless, that's the source of their huge hesitancy.

Mashille · April 9

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It wasn't fine. It almost killed the game.

Functionality wise, it was fine. The issues ESO countered early in its lifespan weren't all because of faction instancing (it was a part of it), there was a multitude of things players weren't happy about both in Elder Scrolls type elements and MMO elements.

Instancing was more of an issue before due to lack of things like dungeon finders etc meaning you had to find players in your zones, and you were locked to playing with people from your faction. But, due to the "difficulty" instancing only affecting overland content it wouldn't affect dungeon finder or any of the rest of that stuff so wouldn't harm player engagement for those activities.

spartaxoxo · April 9

Mashille wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It wasn't fine. It almost killed the game.

Functionality wise, it was fine. The issues ESO countered early in its lifespan weren't all because of faction instancing (it was a part of it), there was a multitude of things players weren't happy about both in Elder Scrolls type elements and MMO elements.

Instancing was more of an issue before due to lack of things like dungeon finders etc. Due to the difficulty only affecting overland content it wouldn't affect dungeon finder or any of the rest of that stuff.

It wasn't. People really hated it because they couldn't play with their friends. When their company nearly failed, they did massive amounts of research to understand what was going on. And being unable to play with friends was one of the most cited reasons. So, they came up with One Tamriel. This is also why they limit the amount of quest areas that change after a quest is over post relaunch.

You're right there was a host of other issues. But that was a big one and they have discussed it multiple times.

Mashille · April 9

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It wasn't. People really hated it because they couldn't play with their friends. When their company nearly failed, they did massive amounts of research to understand what was going on. And being unable to play with friends was one of the most cited reasons. So, they came up with One Tamriel. This is also why they limit the amount of quest areas that change after a quest is over post relaunch.

You're right there was a host of other issues. But that was a big one and they have discussed it multiple times.

When I say "functionality wise", I mean it worked, not meaning it was liked by players.

I don't think those same issues would occur with instances for "difficulty" though. With the original Alliance instances you were locked in unless you created a whole new character. With difficulty you would be able to change instances at will to join whoever you wanted.

spartaxoxo · April 9

Mashille wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It wasn't. People really hated it because they couldn't play with their friends. When their company nearly failed, they did massive amounts of research to understand what was going on. And being unable to play with friends was one of the most cited reasons. So, they came up with One Tamriel. This is also why they limit the amount of quest areas that change after a quest is over post relaunch.

You're right there was a host of other issues. But that was a big one and they have discussed it multiple times.

When I say "functionality wise", I mean it worked, not meaning it was liked by players.

I don't think those same issues would occur with instances for "difficulty" though. With the original Alliance instances you were locked in unless you created a whole new character. With difficulty you would be able to change instances at will to join whoever you wanted.

No. I agree that they could fix the issues with how it worked at launch. That's a good example of something they could change to make it go over better a second time around.

I'm just talking about the launch state of the game and why it lead to not separating players becoming a core design philosophy for them. The launch state of the idea was absolutely not fine.

Blood_again · April 9

FabresFour wrote: »

1) Overland remains shared, while instanced content adapts through phasing

2) Combat-based difficulty assignment per enemy

I like the first. That would allow players to group in instances by difficulty.

The second option may cause some troubles, up to griefing.
One tanky vestige-difficulty player could camp the world-boss for example. That would delay or block the progress for some basic-difficulty players who just want to do their daily boss quest fast.

ADarklore · April 9

Here is my thought... this game IS an MMO... if you want a single-player experience, play a single player game. They aren't going to separate players, and as many players have said- and I agree- this whole difficulty option will be a novelty that soon players will grow bored with and stop using anyway. So it doesn't make sense that ZOS devote a ton of their limited resources to create a system that eventually won't be utilized by the majority anyway.

As a solo player, part of the fun of doing open world, delves and public dungeons IS running into other players and helping them out along the way. Sure, it can be frustrating when I am trying to solo a boss to test my skills and someone else comes along and finishes them off... BUT... I also understand that this is an MMO and that they have as much right to play as I do.

robwolf666 · April 9

OP - Simple... Old Vet style separate instances for the difficulty levels.

Mashille · April 9

ADarklore wrote: »

Here is my thought... this game IS an MMO... if you want a single-player experience, play a single player game. They aren't going to separate players, and as many players have said- and I agree- this whole difficulty option will be a novelty that soon players will grow bored with and stop using anyway. So it doesn't make sense that ZOS devote a ton of their limited resources to create a system that eventually won't be utilized by the majority anyway.

As a solo player, part of the fun of doing open world, delves and public dungeons IS running into other players and helping them out along the way. Sure, it can be frustrating when I am trying to solo a boss to test my skills and someone else comes along and finishes them off... BUT... I also understand that this is an MMO and that they have as much right to play as I do.

When you say you like running into new players and helping them. I'm genuinely curious what you're helping them with when basically all content can be beaten just by light attacking and ignoring all enemy attacks?

AlterBlika · April 9

The only solution is to implement instancing. If they could they would do it.
Tbh they shouldn't implement any of these sophisticated solutions. None of them is ideal. This would require quite some work and a lot of testing - only to be scrapped somewhere in the future.

SkaiFaith · April 9

Point number 2 is a good idea because XP already works like this: if a level 3.600 attacks first an enemy and a level 1 then gets the kill credits, the XP this last gets is as high as level 3.600 gets (at least, it was like this last time I checked).

BUT I'd make an adjustment - since it would feel unfair for a weaker player that doesn't want Vestige difficulty imposed on him to be oneshotted 20 times, I don't think % modifiers should be applied; instead, I'd just put balanced caps: a set cap to the damage he can do per hit and a set cap to the damage he can take per hit.

Toanis · April 9

I would have two versions of each zone, one standard difficulty, one Craglorn+ difficulty.

Increasing difficulty by debuffing yourself is kinda pointless. Having worse or no gear will do the same, and you're either a nuisance to other players that have to carry you, or the normal difficulty players will just nuke the "hard" mobs you're fighting.

Any difficulty rewards will be farmed by groups of max difficulty players that are carried by one normal difficulty player

SolarRune · April 9

The chosen direction surprised me, because I remember threads in the past that people were unwilling to just debuff themselves by running worse armor or removing armor to falsely inflate the difficulty, the chosen direction is just a programmatic way of doing that, the origin of this is that people wanted more engaging fights in overland not just damage sponges that made the same fight last much longer.

tomofhyrule · April 9

If it's a world enemy, it is open to everyone in the world. You don't get to get mad that someone else comes to kill the thing you're trying to solo.

If you want a solo experience where you can fight at any difficulty you choose without other people coming in to 'assist,' there are options:

Go into one of the several instanced areas, like dungeons, trials, or the final boss of a story to enjoy it alone without anyone showing up
Do overland on the PTS in the off-season, when nobody is around
Go play an actual single-player game

This all reeks of the dungeon finder speedrunner vs. story-focused players, and we've seen so many people say "if you want things to go your way, find your own group." Well, it goes here too: if you want things to go your way without other people, find a place where you can be without people. The answer is not "ban the noobs from my instance" since you are the one who wants to be alone.

AzuraFan · April 9

randconfig wrote: »

Show an icon above the boss + players name indicating the increased difficulty, and if the player on adventurer difficulty joins in the fight, it automatically puts them in the same difficulty as the fight.

Seems simple enough to me.

Why would the lower difficulty be bumped up to higher difficulty, rather than the other way around? In any event, it's a bad idea. Increased difficulty is supposed to be optional. If I don't opt-in to the higher difficulty, I don't want someone else's choice forced on me.

Aces-High-82 · April 9

Anything that adds additional Server calcs is at those Point a big time NO imo.

Ishtarknows · April 9

AzuraFan wrote: »

randconfig wrote: »

Show an icon above the boss + players name indicating the increased difficulty, and if the player on adventurer difficulty joins in the fight, it automatically puts them in the same difficulty as the fight.

Seems simple enough to me.

Why would the lower difficulty be bumped up to higher difficulty, rather than the other way around? In any event, it's a bad idea. Increased difficulty is supposed to be optional. If I don't opt-in to the higher difficulty, I don't want someone else's choice forced on me.

In the scenario you're quoting the first person there dictates the difficulty level of that enemy. This seems entirely reasonable.Why should any latecomer to the fight influence the difficulty?

Muizer · April 9

"Tagging" enemies to a higher level of difficulty can also be used to troll players, but worse, because this way it could actually be used to frustrate progression for those who cannot handle the higher difficulty. So "no thanks" on that one.

As for 'just' creating a veteran instance, we're not actually thinking of turning overland into something that has to be mastered through repetition, the way Dungeons and Trials are, right? No, the objective is substantially different: to give players encounters that are challenging but survivable the first time of asking. And that, ladies and gentlemen, means a difficulty level that needs to be pretty fine tuned to the player. 4 levels is no luxury, I tell you. If anything they should have added more granularity, not less.

AzuraFan · April 9

Ishtarknows wrote: »

In the scenario you're quoting the first person there dictates the difficulty level of that enemy. This seems entirely reasonable.Why should any latecomer to the fight influence the difficulty?

It shouldn't, because nobody else's choice should be forced on anyone else.

I asked because when you have a bunch of people waiting for a boss to spawn, why should the difficulty be determined by whoever gets in the first shot? And if it worked the way the poster suggested, some players set to higher difficulty would run around tagging stuff when someone else was nearby just to set it to high difficulty. You know, hit a boss once then run away laughing at the player set to adventurer who now has to deal with a higher difficulty boss, or more likely, will have to wait around for it to reset.

But again, it shouldn't work that way at all. This is supposed to be opt-in. If I'm set to adventurer, everything I fight must be at adventurer difficulty.

Having said all that, with ZOS keeping everyone in the same instance, I have no idea how this is all going to turn out in practice. If players set to high difficulty don't get the experience they want, that won't be right either. But the solution isn't to force higher difficulty on players who haven't opted in, no matter who got in the first shot.

ETA: The cleanest way to implement this would have been separate instance - normal and vet, just like everything else. I understand why ZOS wants to keep everyone together, but will it work? I guess we'll find out.