Tell ZOS you want a phase toggle for vet difficulty!

Phinix1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bWhD9NtPuI

I still think the best thing they could do, and I encourage more people on these forums to go to Support and Email and put in a ticket requesting it, is to allow the community a TOGGLE that lets you keep vet content as it is if you want, or play in a separate phase with all the people who want it easy.

That way everybody wins, and you don't lose subs by alienating one half of the community or the other. It would be very simple to implement as well, since all the work is basically done already with the existing megaserver phasing technology.

I really do agree, the challenge isn't that big a deal. But there is a huge group of people that want things to always be easy for them without having to adapt at all, and ZOS is a business first and foremost. For this first year at least it seems that they are more interested in satisfying their investors than remaining true even to their own design model. It is sad, because they really had something unique and interesting here.

This is a rather unprecedented total restructure of the core game dynamic months into launch to satisfy the easy mode crowd. It feels a little unnerving, like the company is going into desperation panic mode, but clearly that is what they think it will take to keep enough of the easy mode subscribers to afford to continue to improve the game, which EVERYBODY wants.

Sometimes, you have to make sacrifices. Of course sacrificing the engine so you can afford razor fins to make your car go faster is sort of dumb but we'll see...

Regardless, rather than polarizing an already tenuous community morale, setting one side against the other where one camp inevitably loses the ability to play how they want, I suggest we beseech ZOS to use the existing phasing system to create a standard and veteran phase for veteran zones, just like you can toggle normal or veteran mode for dungeons, so that people who LOVE the unique, challenging, and rewarding veteran zones ZOS created don't end up feeling this is just another game to cave to the WoW crowd and move on.

Personally, I don't want to lose EITHER camp, and this SIMPLE fix would allow BOTH to play how they want.

SaibotLiu

It may not be difficult to "flip the switch" and do it now. The problem comes when applying further updates to the game. Those have to be added for both easy and hard mode, and have to also be properly balanced for a huge part of the game, twice.

Dev time is always at a premium, and this is doubling the load. Won't happen.

Phinix1

SaibotLiu wrote: »

It may not be difficult to "flip the switch" and do it now. The problem comes when applying further updates to the game. Those have to be added for both easy and hard mode, and have to also be properly balanced for a huge part of the game, twice.

Dev time is always at a premium, and this is doubling the load. Won't happen.

Mob health and damage exists in a completely separate database table than things like quests, AI, and other core content.

Patches to the game could easily be scripted to apply to both phases without touching the one or two database table columns that deal with mob health and damage.,

Dev time on this would be MINIMAL.

There are open source games you can download to get an idea how the the script for the core interacts with the database.

There is no reason updates should effect this at all.

SaibotLiu

AlienDiplomat wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

It may not be difficult to "flip the switch" and do it now. The problem comes when applying further updates to the game. Those have to be added for both easy and hard mode, and have to also be properly balanced for a huge part of the game, twice.

Dev time is always at a premium, and this is doubling the load. Won't happen.

Mob health and damage exists in a completely separate database table than things like quests, AI, and other core content.

Patches to the game could easily be scripted to apply to both phases without touching the one or two database table columns that deal with mob health and damage.,

Dev time on this would be MINIMAL.

There are open source games you can download to get an idea how the the script for the core interacts with the database.

There is no reason updates should effect this at all.

Yeah, sure. And then in a years time if they've done some revamp of the classes and abilities and everything works differently, if one side or the other is not taken into account when balancing changes, one side is likely to be broken and need further rebalancing.

It's like the theory of evolution. Starts off slow at first, then at some point you can't tell the two apart anymore because there have been so many changes.

There's no point in running basically two different versions of the game at once. No MMO developer would do it. Were fortunate we get hard mode dungeons. You want hard mode 70% of the game. Again, won't happen.

And I don't want the changes to start with. But I wouldn't expect them to keep both. It's gotta be one way or the other.

Phinix1

SaibotLiu wrote: »

AlienDiplomat wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

It may not be difficult to "flip the switch" and do it now. The problem comes when applying further updates to the game. Those have to be added for both easy and hard mode, and have to also be properly balanced for a huge part of the game, twice.

Dev time is always at a premium, and this is doubling the load. Won't happen.

Mob health and damage exists in a completely separate database table than things like quests, AI, and other core content.

Patches to the game could easily be scripted to apply to both phases without touching the one or two database table columns that deal with mob health and damage.,

Dev time on this would be MINIMAL.

There are open source games you can download to get an idea how the the script for the core interacts with the database.

There is no reason updates should effect this at all.

Yeah, sure. And then in a years time if they've done some revamp of the classes and abilities and everything works differently, if one side or the other is not taken into account when balancing changes, one side is likely to be broken and need further rebalancing.

It's like the theory of evolution. Starts off slow at first, then at some point you can't tell the two apart anymore because there have been so many changes.

There's no point in running basically two different versions of the game at once. No MMO developer would do it. Were fortunate we get hard mode dungeons. You want hard mode 70% of the game. Again, won't happen.

And I don't want the changes to start with. But I wouldn't expect them to keep both. It's gotta be one way or the other.

And I am telling you, in spite of obviously feeling very strongly and assured in what you say, you are dead wrong.

At least with the changes they are proposing, it is a linear slider of mob health and damage (and possibly resistance). This is a separate database table that is not effected by ANY class ability.

Change class abilities all you like. At the end of the equation it comes down to this:

How much damage does this ability do to said mob?

Current mob health - damage.

You are arguing what you believe, but if you had taken apart a game engine as I have and looked at how the code interacts with the database, you would understand why the changes they suggest for veteran would not be effected by any class balancing they do.

Zorrashi

SaibotLiu wrote: »

It may not be difficult to "flip the switch" and do it now. The problem comes when applying further updates to the game. Those have to be added for both easy and hard mode, and have to also be properly balanced for a huge part of the game, twice.

Dev time is always at a premium, and this is doubling the load. Won't happen.

As much as I fancy the idea of a toggle, I have to agree with this guy. Seems like it would lead to much more trouble than its worth.

I mean, one day there will be patch that includes some ability tweaks and changes, and for whatever inexplicable reason, those changes are not working as intended on hard-mode part of the toggle, whereas their fine on the easy-mode part of the toggle. Imagine the uproar, especially if they can't fix it as early as many want.
Then what if these problems pile up, without a fix? Then comes the day when they add more content, like a new zone or dungeon, then they may opt to not give it to one side of the toggle purely because of issues.

It is very speculative scenario, but it is a possible one. That's not even taking into account the possible lag that may ensue for some. Do they really have enough man power to basically manage two different levels?

I mean, I'm certainly no expert, but it seems very much like a hit and miss. But if they could actually do it....then I say go on ahead! But it seems like a long shot.

Phinix1

Zorrashi wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

It may not be difficult to "flip the switch" and do it now. The problem comes when applying further updates to the game. Those have to be added for both easy and hard mode, and have to also be properly balanced for a huge part of the game, twice.

Dev time is always at a premium, and this is doubling the load. Won't happen.

As much as I fancy the idea of a toggle, I have to agree with this guy. Seems like it would lead to much more trouble than its worth.

I mean, one day there will be patch that includes some ability tweaks and changes, and for whatever inexplicable reason, those changes are not working as intended on hard-mode part of the toggle, whereas their fine on the easy-mode part of the toggle. Imagine the uproar, especially if they can't fix it as early as many want.
Then what if these problems pile up, without a fix? Then comes the day when they add more content, like a new zone or dungeon, then they may opt to not give it to one side of the toggle purely because of issues.

It is very speculative scenario, but it is a possible one. That's not even taking into account the possible lag that may ensue for some. Do they really have enough man power to basically manage two different levels?

I mean, I'm certainly no expert, but it seems very much like a hit and miss. But if they could actually do it....then I say go on ahead! But it seems like a long shot.

You guys might mean well, but if you understood what a game engine actually looks like you would understand this would not happen.

Changes are scripted to apply to specific tables in a database and specific sections of code not related to the difficulty settings.

The code and databases are IDENTICAL minus the difficulty settings.

Patch conflicts would not be an issue. You are just being alarmists and I understand no one wants to see things get worse, but I am telling you, this is a case of simply not understanding what you are talking about.

Blackwidow

Or just wait until the patch to see if the world actually ends.

Hint. It does not.

Phinix1

Blackwidow wrote: »

Or just wait until the patch to see if the world actually ends.

Hint. It does not.

Jeez man, couldn't you at least have used spoiler tags when predicting the future?

Armianlee

AlienDiplomat wrote: »

Blackwidow wrote: »

Or just wait until the patch to see if the world actually ends.

Hint. It does not.

Jeez man, couldn't you at least have used spoiler tags when predicting the future?

Hate to break it to you:

Sharee

As much as i think the current vet difficulty is fine - a toggle would just dillute the population even further.

Blackwidow

AlienDiplomat wrote: »

Blackwidow wrote: »

Or just wait until the patch to see if the world actually ends.

Hint. It does not.

Jeez man, couldn't you at least have used spoiler tags when predicting the future?

/awesome

Zorrashi

AlienDiplomat wrote: »

Zorrashi wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

It may not be difficult to "flip the switch" and do it now. The problem comes when applying further updates to the game. Those have to be added for both easy and hard mode, and have to also be properly balanced for a huge part of the game, twice.

Dev time is always at a premium, and this is doubling the load. Won't happen.

As much as I fancy the idea of a toggle, I have to agree with this guy. Seems like it would lead to much more trouble than its worth.

I mean, one day there will be patch that includes some ability tweaks and changes, and for whatever inexplicable reason, those changes are not working as intended on hard-mode part of the toggle, whereas their fine on the easy-mode part of the toggle. Imagine the uproar, especially if they can't fix it as early as many want.
Then what if these problems pile up, without a fix? Then comes the day when they add more content, like a new zone or dungeon, then they may opt to not give it to one side of the toggle purely because of issues.

It is very speculative scenario, but it is a possible one. That's not even taking into account the possible lag that may ensue for some. Do they really have enough man power to basically manage two different levels?

I mean, I'm certainly no expert, but it seems very much like a hit and miss. But if they could actually do it....then I say go on ahead! But it seems like a long shot.

You guys might mean well, but if you understood what a game engine actually looks like you would understand this would not happen.

Changes are scripted to apply to specific tables in a database and specific sections of code not related to the difficulty settings.

The code and databases are IDENTICAL minus the difficulty settings.

Patch conflicts would not be an issue. You are just being alarmists and I understand no one wants to see things get worse, but I am telling you, this is a case of simply not understanding what you are talking about.

Well, if that's the case, then my disposition still stands; go on ahead with the toggle.
I won't lie though, even as I think about it, alarms are going off in my head....

Blackwidow

Armianlee wrote: »

Hate to break it to you:

I would play that game!

If that happens tomorrow, I will buy 10 copies and make sure ALL my friends play!

Akhratos

Blackwidow wrote: »

Armianlee wrote: »

Hate to break it to you:

I would play that game!

If that happens tomorrow, I will buy 10 copies and make sure ALL my friends play!

Buy all the spray cans you can afford and start emptying them in the street.

Tell all your friends to do the same.

Wait for a few hundred/thousand years maybe?

Lithion

AlienDiplomat wrote: »

I still think the best thing they could do, and I encourage more people on these forums to go to Support and Email and put in a ticket requesting it, is to allow the community a TOGGLE that lets you keep vet content as it is if you want, or play in a separate phase with all the people who want it easy.

That way everybody wins, and you don't lose subs by alienating one half of the community or the other. It would be very simple to implement as well, since all the work is basically done already with the existing megaserver phasing technology.

I really do agree, the challenge isn't that big a deal. But there is a huge group of people that want things to always be easy for them without having to adapt at all, and ZOS is a business first and foremost. For this first year at least it seems that they are more interested in satisfying their investors than remaining true even to their own design model. It is sad, because they really had something unique and interesting here.

This is a rather unprecedented total restructure of the core game dynamic months into launch to satisfy the easy mode crowd. It feels a little unnerving, like the company is going into desperation panic mode, but clearly that is what they think it will take to keep enough of the easy mode subscribers to afford to continue to improve the game, which EVERYBODY wants.

Sometimes, you have to make sacrifices. Of course sacrificing the engine so you can afford razor fins to make your car go faster is sort of dumb but we'll see...

Regardless, rather than polarizing an already tenuous community morale, setting one side against the other where one camp inevitably loses the ability to play how they want, I suggest we beseech ZOS to use the existing phasing system to create a standard and veteran phase for veteran zones, just like you can toggle normal or veteran mode for dungeons, so that people who LOVE the unique, challenging, and rewarding veteran zones ZOS created don't end up feeling this is just another game to cave to the WoW crowd and move on.

Personally, I don't want to lose EITHER camp, and this SIMPLE fix would allow BOTH to play how they want.

This sounds very similar to a suggestion I just made, except without the separate phase. My suggestion relies on a giving players a powerful stat buff for the easier option and keeping the current difficulty and increasing rewards/Vet xp for the more difficult option.

Both the buffed and unbuffed players could play in the same zone. They would just receive different rewards based on their choice of using/not using the buff.

The thread I posted this idea on is titled "Solution to VR Difficulty = CHOICE". Check it out. We're both trying to accomplish the same thing, just in a different manner.

Blackwidow

Archaon wrote: »

Blackwidow wrote: »

Armianlee wrote: »

Hate to break it to you:

I would play that game!

If that happens tomorrow, I will buy 10 copies and make sure ALL my friends play!

Buy all the spray cans you can afford and start emptying them in the street.

Tell all your friends to do the same.

Wait for a few hundred/thousand years maybe?

That game sounds boring.

MonkeyAssassin24

Yeah that's just what this game needs...more phasing. This is just another idea from players who only wanted the exact same game as Skyrim but with the ability to bring a friend along.

Normal vet mobs needed to be balanced. If anything there should be areas of tough vet mobs that you can take on if you want the challenge. Give me an Aylied ruin with elite mobs, that's fine, but being able to barely kill a group of alligators after I pretty much saved the world is not enjoyable challenge, it's just depressing.

Larira

IMHO it is not a good idea. Their current phasing is already broken. With this difficulty phasing there is a big chance to break the phasing much more. And it would divide the community much more.


Greetings

Arsenic_Touch

A phase toggle is a terrible idea. It will only further fuel the ghost like feel to veteran zones which have very little to do with the difficulty and everything to do with the fact that the majority of the population are not even that high in level and the other part of the population knows that it's more efficient in craglorn.

I'd prefer if they actually fixed the current phasing system before even dreaming off adding to it.

They need to address the class/armor/skill balance and reward issues and give more purpose and utility to the veteran levels before changing anything else.

Kulthax

@AlienDiplomat‌ While adding a 'toggle' feature is not technically impossible, it is technically a bad idea. As has been stated 2 patches would most likely have to be created since you would have 2 instances of the game running. Doubling the workload of the developers and delaying other fixes and content upgrades.

How would your client react to this toggle? Is this something you could switch off and on at a whim? Or is this a one time choice?

I am one who does not want the difficulty changed. I believe it is fine where it is at and there are more pressing issues with VR content. However, the powers that be have a plan and, according to the post yesterday, Monday's patch is just a small part of that plan for VR content. I will reserve judgement until Zenimaxs plan is laid out in front me in it's entirety. I will most definitely not judge based on assumptions.

I think when ranting about what it is YOU want, at least detail your thoughts and plans out so that it does not come across as a rant.

nudel

I made a poll about this and oddly enough most of the very same names posting against the nerf to VR on Monday came into my poll and voted no and told me to "learn to play".

People don't know what they want.

ItsMeToo

If you want the game harder, don't ware armor, or use a weapon, or use magic. There, problem solved.

Faustes

1. Why do you have 6 different threads on this same topic?

2. You obviously have no software or game development experience if you think this is a "simple fix"

3. Fallacy claiming this change "alienates half the playerbase". The fact is, you are in the minority. ZOS has the data to back this up.

4. More phasing would just fragment the already fragmented population. ESO doesn't have the population to support this. The change you're proposing doubles the amount of existing phases.

5. Elder scrolls series is not known for being "hard". If you want a "hard" game, there are far superior choices. They ARE known for it's lore, character development, environments, player choice, interesting quest lines, etc...

6. From a technical standpoint, it's simply a nightmare. Any sort of balance or tweaking to abilities now has to support both toggles. All future content has to be now be tweaked and tested in both toggles. The list goes on.

MasterSpatula

Some people have been able to solo content that was always intended as group content but never labeled that way. I don't get why the bragging rights from months of being able to solo group content isn't enough for you guys. Why do you insist those who don't want to do that should be miserable?

hk11

only if the rewards are better. otherwise, why slow down your progress to 3fps pvp?

Phinix1

MasterSpatula wrote: »

Some people have been able to solo content that was always intended as group content but never labeled that way. I don't get why the bragging rights from months of being able to solo group content isn't enough for you guys. Why do you insist those who don't want to do that should be miserable?

Short answer? Because three months of "bragging rights" playing a brilliantly designed game that makes you think and rewards skill is hardly enough to offset being forced to endure probably the best thing to happen to the MMO industry being reduced to yet another easy mode coaster for the remainder of it's life.

I don't give a flying skeever's arse about bragging rights.

There is simply no reason a company should consider completely redesigning the entire core philosophy of a game three months into launch because some people threaten to rage quit on the forums. Not when they can easily use the existing phase technology to let BOTH of us have what we want.

Can you honestly tell me you don't understand why people would feel frustrated and betrayed by such a tactic?

I have nothing against the people that want things to be easier. This is ALL on ZOS. There is a simple way for them to keep ALL our money. Give us normal-veteran and veteran-veteran content just like we have normal and veteran dungeons.

Why I don't want ZOS to nerf veteran content...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DESffpehwAg

Does that look like group content to you? Because it just looks FUN AS HECK to me!

Alphashado

So much for your humble apology. You are already back to labeling people as "easy mode crowd that refuses to adapt". ESO VR content is MUCH more unforgiving than any other premier MMO was at launch before their so called easy mode nerfs. Even after a mild nerf, ESO VR content will probably STILL be more unforgiving than any other premier MMO was at launch. You guys need to relax and wait for the changes. Then judge. I've been browsing game forums for 20 years and I've never seen such an overreaction. Ever.

kieso

AlienDiplomat wrote: »

I still think the best thing they could do, and I encourage more people on these forums to go to Support and Email and put in a ticket requesting it, is to allow the community a TOGGLE that lets you keep vet content as it is if you want, or play in a separate phase with all the people who want it easy.

That way everybody wins, and you don't lose subs by alienating one half of the community or the other. It would be very simple to implement as well, since all the work is basically done already with the existing megaserver phasing technology.

I really do agree, the challenge isn't that big a deal. But there is a huge group of people that want things to always be easy for them without having to adapt at all, and ZOS is a business first and foremost. For this first year at least it seems that they are more interested in satisfying their investors than remaining true even to their own design model. It is sad, because they really had something unique and interesting here.

This is a rather unprecedented total restructure of the core game dynamic months into launch to satisfy the easy mode crowd. It feels a little unnerving, like the company is going into desperation panic mode, but clearly that is what they think it will take to keep enough of the easy mode subscribers to afford to continue to improve the game, which EVERYBODY wants.

Sometimes, you have to make sacrifices. Of course sacrificing the engine so you can afford razor fins to make your car go faster is sort of dumb but we'll see...

Regardless, rather than polarizing an already tenuous community morale, setting one side against the other where one camp inevitably loses the ability to play how they want, I suggest we beseech ZOS to use the existing phasing system to create a standard and veteran phase for veteran zones, just like you can toggle normal or veteran mode for dungeons, so that people who LOVE the unique, challenging, and rewarding veteran zones ZOS created don't end up feeling this is just another game to cave to the WoW crowd and move on.

Personally, I don't want to lose EITHER camp, and this SIMPLE fix would allow BOTH to play how they want.

A toggle is just silly stfu already geez.

EnochRoot

AlienDiplomat wrote: »

There is simply no reason a company should consider completely redesigning the entire core philosophy of a game three months into launch because some people threaten to rage quit on the forums. Not when they can easily use the existing phase technology to let BOTH of us have what we want.

It's not a complete redesign.

If you think that leveraging the "phasing technology" is easy, you have NO professional development experience. You'd effectively double the amount of development effort needed to plan, execute, and test those aspects of the game. What you think is "simple" or "easy" is a short-sighted, and naive, viewpoint on what this kind of change fully entails. Further, please explain how you know anything about ESO internals because you made a script for some game one time.

Rev Rielle

Honestly, I'm not sure this could actually work in an MMO sense.

A friend pointed me to another suggestion someone made. They thought it was a very good one, and so do I. It was to allow players that don't like as much of a challenge the ability to hire a mercenary or similar. Perhaps it could be a mages or fighters guild one, or an undaunted or something else similar that would be appropriate to their game. But it could help solve both problems.