Seriously, this game is too easy and the overworld needs to be buffed heavily.

Cerra

Aireal wrote: »

RavenSworn wrote: »

And that's where we, as the community comes in. Where we encourage them, group up with them, where we as veterans show what it means to be a good player, one that looks at their gear, at their build, at their game play, show them the ropes, show them guild activities that they can partake.

>>>>>It has never been about just the game mechanics or systems that make or break the game. It's always has been about the community. "Guys, I'm having trouble with this Phaer Amuur dude, anyone can help out?" "Sure thing, let me finish up this dolmen and I'm gtg."

"dude, you're soloing a dolmen? How's that possible?! What's your build like?" "lol just some simple stuff, let me show you what I did with my gear and build" etc, etc.

This is anecdotal of course, but I've never had anyone, currently, asking for help in my guild, a small sample as it is, for questing. It's always about going to a location, or dungeon run, or perhaps WB dailies. I do have however, guildies that inquire if overland have elite mobs, or an elite zone they can have a bit of fun grinding questing.

As nice as that would be.. outside a guild, I sat at a Dolmen..only the final boss left for over an hour asking for help. I'm stubborn as Hades when I want to finish something. So I asked for help.. I waited, I tried again- died.. I asked for help, I waited, I tried again- died.. rinse repeat for about an hour and one other player came..took all of 3 minutes. The Final Boxx healed himself faster than my character could deal damage... the rest of the Dolmen had been a nice challenge.

Yeah I'm now part of a guild.. I am working on learning how to juggle Discord, and the game so that I can run with the crowd and go to the 'training' exercises they have. Of course, timing might be an issue, the last 'class' started at the same time I had to go to work.

That said.. I have gotten peoples attention and helped them.. with a couple quests, that just seems hard to start right.

Asking for help.. "Could someone look at the stat's on my character and their skills and give me a pointer in the direction to go?" ..."No no, I don't want a set of Epic gear to get through the quest I am on... I just want pointers in a good direction to go."

So yes, there ARE helpful people.. sometimes they offer the wrong kinda help, but their heart is in the right place. Now if I needed new gear ( and actually I did ask a friend to create some ) then that would be fine.. For the most part, I want to learn as much as I can on my own.. with an occasional elbow to the ribs.. "hey.. take a left".


EDIT: I prefer to play solo most of the time.. But I also like running with a friend or two ( haven't had a chance to run with the guild yet) BUT I tend to play at really odd hours sometimes.. waiting for a group of friends to be on? OH Heck NO.. I'd never get anywhere! Weekends? Um NO.. I worked Yesterday ( Sat) and I work today ( Sun).. my days off.. Tue's and Wed's this week.. might be Fri and Sat next week..

That was group content... it's not intended for you to solo it. The problem is that most people can.

Sylvermynx

Cerra wrote: »

Aireal wrote: »

RavenSworn wrote: »

And that's where we, as the community comes in. Where we encourage them, group up with them, where we as veterans show what it means to be a good player, one that looks at their gear, at their build, at their game play, show them the ropes, show them guild activities that they can partake.

>>>>>It has never been about just the game mechanics or systems that make or break the game. It's always has been about the community. "Guys, I'm having trouble with this Phaer Amuur dude, anyone can help out?" "Sure thing, let me finish up this dolmen and I'm gtg."

"dude, you're soloing a dolmen? How's that possible?! What's your build like?" "lol just some simple stuff, let me show you what I did with my gear and build" etc, etc.

This is anecdotal of course, but I've never had anyone, currently, asking for help in my guild, a small sample as it is, for questing. It's always about going to a location, or dungeon run, or perhaps WB dailies. I do have however, guildies that inquire if overland have elite mobs, or an elite zone they can have a bit of fun grinding questing.

As nice as that would be.. outside a guild, I sat at a Dolmen..only the final boss left for over an hour asking for help. I'm stubborn as Hades when I want to finish something. So I asked for help.. I waited, I tried again- died.. I asked for help, I waited, I tried again- died.. rinse repeat for about an hour and one other player came..took all of 3 minutes. The Final Boss healed himself faster than my character could deal damage... the rest of the Dolmen had been a nice challenge.

Yeah I'm now part of a guild.. I am working on learning how to juggle Discord, and the game so that I can run with the crowd and go to the 'training' exercises they have. Of course, timing might be an issue, the last 'class' started at the same time I had to go to work.

That said.. I have gotten peoples attention and helped them.. with a couple quests, that just seems hard to start right.

Asking for help.. "Could someone look at the stat's on my character and their skills and give me a pointer in the direction to go?" ..."No no, I don't want a set of Epic gear to get through the quest I am on... I just want pointers in a good direction to go."

So yes, there ARE helpful people.. sometimes they offer the wrong kinda help, but their heart is in the right place. Now if I needed new gear ( and actually I did ask a friend to create some ) then that would be fine.. For the most part, I want to learn as much as I can on my own.. with an occasional elbow to the ribs.. "hey.. take a left".


EDIT: I prefer to play solo most of the time.. But I also like running with a friend or two ( haven't had a chance to run with the guild yet) BUT I tend to play at really odd hours sometimes.. waiting for a group of friends to be on? OH Heck NO.. I'd never get anywhere! Weekends? Um NO.. I worked Yesterday ( Sat) and I work today ( Sun).. my days off.. Tue's and Wed's this week.. might be Fri and Sat next week..

That was group content... it's not intended for you to solo it. The problem is that most people can.

Er.... yes. Group content - and she asked for help. No one responded.... Bolded the relevant part.

srfrogg23

Sadetius wrote: »

@srfrogg23

So many assumptions made, and generalizations.

Again lets not forget that hard fun, which involves challenge and difficulty, is one of the four core pillars of fun (Lazzaro 2004).

Furthermore as quoted from game design literature : "Challenge is at the core of almost all gameplay. You could even say that a game is defined by its goals and its challenges." (Schell 2008)

Look at all other mmo forums, and you will always see the hard fun player group asking for some kind options for difficulty. There is a group that has been starving for a challenging mmo, and those players are desperately waiting for something.

And no, I don't need better rewards, I would actually say lower the drop rates to make items have more value. Dungeons have different reward tiers, so why would that suddenly be a problem? I personally would not care either way. And Easy fun players could always group up and do some content in Veteran overland for some extra rewards as well if they wanted to.

I don't play for the rewards, I want a veteran overworld option because I want to go on an adventure with friends. I don't want quests to be a running simulator.
I want to tell cool stories, how I and my friend got ambushed by bandits and just barely survived. How we sneaked by the spiders in the cave knowing that alerting them, would spell our death. And how we finally had an epic battle with a giant bear that we just survived with almost no health left, but our reward was an awesome weapon or armor. That is what I want to experience.

And sure other players might not like that kind of gameplay, and just want to unwind after a long day, feel like a hero smack some monsters around. I personally don't see the fun in that, but hey different strokes different folks. I respect that preference in gameplay. I like to come to a solution where both hard fun and easy fun players can both enjoy the game.

The developers already stated that they think that some form of difficulty options are a great idea. Instead of having a nice brainstorming session and healthy discussion to find a solution to this problem, as enthusiasts of the Elder Scrolls universe. Nope, just shove it aside and start flinging with terms like: "whining elitism" and "e-peen verification mode.", just wauw.....what great inclusive community.

"Yawn... cool story, bro." (srfrogg23 2019).

See you in WoW Classic! Well, maybe. If you decide that's actually the type of game you're looking for, instead of trying to change this game anyway.

Sylvermynx

Eh.... I STARTED in WoW classic. I was forever grateful when I hit level 40 just so I could ride (slowly), and so I didn't get ambushed and dead on the g'damn ROADS.

srfrogg23

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Eh.... I STARTED in WoW classic. I was forever grateful when I hit level 40 just so I could ride (slowly), and so I didn't get ambushed and dead on the g'damn ROADS.

Heh. I spent my first week in Tirisfal Glades getting killed by level 6 mobs like they were raid bosses because I didn't know how to build my character, lol. It was good times. I'm looking forward to the nostalgia trip. Probably play it for a month or two then cancel my sub, though.

RavenSworn

Kamatsu wrote: »

Jhalin wrote: »

“The sky will implode if the game dares to challenge a player to get better as they play!!”

No, the game would be fine. Why is it people have such little belief in players these days?

We can’t have a chance for failure! All our players are big pssbabies who’ll quit because their naked, weaponless char can’t kill the super powerful mage! (/s)

Because that IS the reality of today's gamers? They *WILL* quit a game if the game gets too hard for them, or suddenly changes from an easy game they can solo to something that close-to requires grouping (for them).

Most players of online games don't have the inclination to try and learn/relearn games, strats, plan out builds, improve their gameplay, etc ... they will grab a build guide and play to that, and if it doesn't work or they can't just spam the 1st skill they get to succeed... they will *quit* the game and go elsewhere.

I'll bring it up again - ANet with GW2's HoT expansion tried the whole 'Offer a challenge" thing, and "grouping is encouraged" thing.. you could still solo it, but it was a lot harder and the mob placement, skill use, etc encouraged travel with other players. They listened to people who said there were huge # of players craving harder gameplay, gameplay that punished players for more challenge, that players would step-up and learn and git gud and do better...

They suffered the biggest 6-month loss in revenue that they had EVER suffered in both Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2. The forums filled up with complaint after complaint from players about how the expansion was too hard, that it was too challenging, couldn't be solo'ed (it could be, but was harder and required re-doing strats, builds, etc)... and within weeks of the launch the forums were filled with threads complaining that the maps were dead, that there was nobody playing the expansion, that even the base game felt dead and deserted.

ANet tried the 'players are smart and will git gud' thing. They had a 67% loss of revenue over 6-months and a huge loss of players.

Other MMO's have tried the hard thing...

Wildstar - dead

Neverwinter - they recently tried making their newer content harder, requiring players 'git gud' and look at changing builds/strats, more focus on possibly grouping up, etc... they suffered player loss and revenue loss as well. They ended up having to nerf the content to try and stop the player loss.

WoW - Cataclysm's dungeons were harder the prior. Guess what? Massive complains about this and players left. They did nerf the dungeons to be 'easier'

This is just something people have to realize and accept - players as a whole will not get better or more skillfull, will not change and/or adjust builds if the game gets tougher as they play... they will keep playing their way till it gets too hard and/or unenjoyable for them, and then quit and leave the game for other games that they can breeze through without thought.

---

A thought for those wanting challenge in openworld - why not start small, and instead of pushing ZOS for a harder openworld (as that is a huge endeavor that will cost a lot of $$$ to do)... you instead push for an optional 'instanced' difficulty.

So push for an optional difficulty that will only effect content that gets instanced... and thus can have 2 completely separate instances... one for the normal players and another for the 'harder content' playes - such as Delves & public dungeons.

Why? Because it would likely take less $$$ for ZOS to edit Delves/PD's mobs for more hp, damage, the skillset used, etc, which means ZOS would be more likely to actually do this. It would also be a way for you to show ZOS just how many people are craving harder fights - if there is as many people as you all feel that there is... then the #'s ZOS see's would support this.

And this way you could show that there is a good business case for ZOS to work on trying to provide you with an optional harder overland, but separated from other players so they do not cut into their casual players either.

Thanks for the different perspective. I rather listen to reasonable arguments like this then just "omgwtf you epeen whiner".

My suggestion to the optional difficulty would be to create a veteran mode for the characters themselves, for eg a 10-15% reduction (or even up to 30%) on player stats. This will be overall stats and not just base stats. Dub this as veteran mode / ironmode. There's not much work done needed by ZoS, there will still be interaction between the new and vet players, no need for phasing or instancing, no change needed for the mobs and quest bosses. It will also only affect overland, delves, public dungeons and solo instances (story quests, not vma)

I'm still on the fence on incentives for this mode. Increasing the chances for higher quality loot might be a good start imo. No need to increase the quality of the loot.

Aireal

Cerra wrote: »

That was group content... it's not intended for you to solo it. The problem is that most people can.

Well as it happens I had asked for help..repeatedly.
This is my first MMO... I am used to thinking about how to get through a game solo... I am learning group tactics.. albeit slowly. The major problem is timing, my job gives me odd playing hours.

When I say I find the OW hard enough, it is because I can see the challenge to my low-level characters in their ( and my ) learning curve.. BUT I also see how once my characters reach higher level's I do NOT want to deal with every bear, wolf and other creature taking a lot of time to kill.\

Once I have been playing a character for a couple hundred hours.. I don't expect nor do I want the OW creatures to be any kind of threat. He or she is the Champion of Vivec, the Hero of Mirkmire, the Savior of err something or other... why in all that's holy would they have an issue with a couple of bears or bandits?

sentientomega

Cerra wrote: »

That was group content... it's not intended for you to solo it. The problem is that most people can.

From https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/56307

"Traditional Dark Anchors and Abyssal Geysers are soloable by design," You were saying...? Though I do find notion of the geysers being soloable by design not a little hard to swallow.

Dolmens are the hardest thing I do alone, I say "hardest" because, sometimes, the generals show up, as much as in threes, even. Next would be public dungeons, and I'd be pretty miffed if I woke up one day and suddenly discovered that I could no longer do those dailies (FG/MG) without help.

MikaHR

RavenSworn wrote: »

Kamatsu wrote: »

Jhalin wrote: »

“The sky will implode if the game dares to challenge a player to get better as they play!!”

No, the game would be fine. Why is it people have such little belief in players these days?

We can’t have a chance for failure! All our players are big pssbabies who’ll quit because their naked, weaponless char can’t kill the super powerful mage! (/s)

Because that IS the reality of today's gamers? They *WILL* quit a game if the game gets too hard for them, or suddenly changes from an easy game they can solo to something that close-to requires grouping (for them).

Most players of online games don't have the inclination to try and learn/relearn games, strats, plan out builds, improve their gameplay, etc ... they will grab a build guide and play to that, and if it doesn't work or they can't just spam the 1st skill they get to succeed... they will *quit* the game and go elsewhere.

I'll bring it up again - ANet with GW2's HoT expansion tried the whole 'Offer a challenge" thing, and "grouping is encouraged" thing.. you could still solo it, but it was a lot harder and the mob placement, skill use, etc encouraged travel with other players. They listened to people who said there were huge # of players craving harder gameplay, gameplay that punished players for more challenge, that players would step-up and learn and git gud and do better...

They suffered the biggest 6-month loss in revenue that they had EVER suffered in both Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2. The forums filled up with complaint after complaint from players about how the expansion was too hard, that it was too challenging, couldn't be solo'ed (it could be, but was harder and required re-doing strats, builds, etc)... and within weeks of the launch the forums were filled with threads complaining that the maps were dead, that there was nobody playing the expansion, that even the base game felt dead and deserted.

ANet tried the 'players are smart and will git gud' thing. They had a 67% loss of revenue over 6-months and a huge loss of players.

Other MMO's have tried the hard thing...

Wildstar - dead

Neverwinter - they recently tried making their newer content harder, requiring players 'git gud' and look at changing builds/strats, more focus on possibly grouping up, etc... they suffered player loss and revenue loss as well. They ended up having to nerf the content to try and stop the player loss.

WoW - Cataclysm's dungeons were harder the prior. Guess what? Massive complains about this and players left. They did nerf the dungeons to be 'easier'

This is just something people have to realize and accept - players as a whole will not get better or more skillfull, will not change and/or adjust builds if the game gets tougher as they play... they will keep playing their way till it gets too hard and/or unenjoyable for them, and then quit and leave the game for other games that they can breeze through without thought.

---

A thought for those wanting challenge in openworld - why not start small, and instead of pushing ZOS for a harder openworld (as that is a huge endeavor that will cost a lot of $$$ to do)... you instead push for an optional 'instanced' difficulty.

So push for an optional difficulty that will only effect content that gets instanced... and thus can have 2 completely separate instances... one for the normal players and another for the 'harder content' playes - such as Delves & public dungeons.

Why? Because it would likely take less $$$ for ZOS to edit Delves/PD's mobs for more hp, damage, the skillset used, etc, which means ZOS would be more likely to actually do this. It would also be a way for you to show ZOS just how many people are craving harder fights - if there is as many people as you all feel that there is... then the #'s ZOS see's would support this.

And this way you could show that there is a good business case for ZOS to work on trying to provide you with an optional harder overland, but separated from other players so they do not cut into their casual players either.

Thanks for the different perspective. I rather listen to reasonable arguments like this then just "omgwtf you epeen whiner".

My suggestion to the optional difficulty would be to create a veteran mode for the characters themselves, for eg a 10-15% reduction (or even up to 30%) on player stats. This will be overall stats and not just base stats. Dub this as veteran mode / ironmode. There's not much work done needed by ZoS, there will still be interaction between the new and vet players, no need for phasing or instancing, no change needed for the mobs and quest bosses. It will also only affect overland, delves, public dungeons and solo instances (story quests, not vma)

I'm still on the fence on incentives for this mode. Increasing the chances for higher quality loot might be a good start imo. No need to increase the quality of the loot.

1. "10-15%" or "30%" wont do squat, i solo vet dungeons sooooo....unless you make it vet dungeon level....dont bother, what is the point, same people will still whine that it is too easy. its in NOT overland isue its power creep (gear+CP) issue

2. You can already do what you want by yourself, take off that OP gear and CP and voila....insta "iron man mode". And you can customize the challenege to your hearts delight, slap on set of lvl1 white gear and go at it!

3. Even vMA can be done with bow light attacks. That is the cost of "mechanics". Unless combat is reworked to be traditional tab target it doesnt matter if dat red cicrle does 1 dmg or 1 000 000 dmg....if you move out of it....or dodge it.

4. Ignoring all the previous games that have done what this thread demands...well...same arguments have been made many many times...so...where are those games? Dead or lost VERY many players in VERY short time. Dont even have to go outside of ESO, just look at DLC dungeons. Or Craglorn v1 and v2....or vet areas at launch of the game. Or whole launch ESO whch died and needed complete rework.

IAmBones

Yeah...this is a bit much to buy into. When I started this game, a year ago this month, I started just like everyone does, I used the gear I got during quests, picked up food where I could find it on tables and such. There were many, many times I was crushed by normal mobs, I agree.. one on one, rarely an issue, but more than one it was always a close call. I think you are relying on more experience playing the game then you realize. Yes, it is easy for YOU...but I assure you that is not the "normal" noobie experience starting from scratch.

Jeremy

Tigerseye wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

Wildstar.

Will you people ever learn?

No company, in their right mind, wants to follow down that road to nowhere.

Wildstar was trash with a clunky interface and horrid combat scheme. I promise you - what made Wildstar fail was not a challenging overworld.

You may have thought that, but I read player reviews and comments about it, when it was about to shut down and lots of people said it was a shame, because they thought it was a great game.

So, taking it from their perspective(s), it didn't work because it was too hard/inconvenient for the average player.

Not because they thought it was a bad game.

I can't comment, personally, because I didn't try it.

I viewed it more as a holding cell for obnoxious, elitist (or wannabe elitist, in most cases) players who wanted LFR removed from WoW.

I tried it and thought it was awful. I couldn't even make it through the beta - nor could any of my friends who were trying it with me. So I'm not surprised it died. And you're talking to someone who got their MMO chops playing the original Final Fantasy 11 and loved it. It doesn't get any more challenging or inconvenient than that - and I still thought Wildstar was terrible. So I doubt it appealed to old school players. It's more likely you're right - and that it was probably just a pocket for "elitism" to fester.

Sadetius

"yawn cool story bro"

An answer to be expected, what did the devs say again? oh, yeah now I remember :
So we have ideas on how to have difficulty settings for overland content, but it's not currently planned. It's a great idea.

@Kamatsu
While we have different views on this. Starting out small with delves and public dungeons would be a great step in that direction. And indeed it would be a great way for the developers to see how much people it attracts.

I still am a supporter of a veteran overworld instance. In regards to the costs of that. It depends on two things in my opinion. I do not really have knowledge on server architecture. But, the initial costs would be the instancing and reserving the required server space.

The costs of increasing the difficulty depends, on how the game is coded. A lot of the difficulty can actually be increased by tweaking numerical values. If the game has a similar structure as Skyrim, where there values which account for :

- Enemy attack frequency
- How often enemies use abilities
- Aggro range
- The chance for enemies to dodge attacks

Now it would require some time to get it to the right spot, But I think it would not require a huge amount of manpower and resources, just time. And I think they would be able to reuse quite a lot of existing assets. Transferring over already existing abilities from other enemies for example.

Then we also have :

- Tweaking hp and damage value
- Additional enemy placement

Tweaking hp and damage is a good base, into making enemies more threatening. Pair that with increasing aggressiveness of enemies by increasing their attack rate, and ability rate, and I think you would have a great challenge. And placing additional enemies paired with increassing aggro range could definitely serve a nice method as well. If you take a look at Skyrim this has basically be done by modders already. And they basically only tweaked numerical values in the game.

So basically if it is the case that these values are accounted for in the code, I think a skeleton crew of devs would be enough to pull this off albeit it would take them some time, however it should not eat up too many resources from the regular content development.

As the devs mentioned they don't have any current plans, but in the near future we might see something

Kamatsu

Sadetius wrote: »

"yawn cool story bro"

An answer to be expected, what did the devs say again? oh, yeah now I remember :
So we have ideas on how to have difficulty settings for overland content, but it's not currently planned. It's a great idea.

@Kamatsu
While we have different views on this. Starting out small with delves and public dungeons would be a great step in that direction. And indeed it would be a great way for the developers to see how much people it attracts.

I still am a supporter of a veteran overworld instance. In regards to the costs of that. It depends on two things in my opinion. I do not really have knowledge on server architecture. But, the initial costs would be the instancing and reserving the required server space.

The costs of increasing the difficulty depends, on how the game is coded. A lot of the difficulty can actually be increased by tweaking numerical values. If the game has a similar structure as Skyrim, where there values which account for :

- Enemy attack frequency
- How often enemies use abilities
- Aggro range
- The chance for enemies to dodge attacks

Now it would require some time to get it to the right spot, But I think it would not require a huge amount of manpower and resources, just time. And I think they would be able to reuse quite a lot of existing assets. Transferring over already existing abilities from other enemies for example.

Then we also have :

- Tweaking hp and damage value
- Additional enemy placement

Tweaking hp and damage is a good base, into making enemies more threatening. Pair that with increasing aggressiveness of enemies by increasing their attack rate, and ability rate, and I think you would have a great challenge. And placing additional enemies paired with increassing aggro range could definitely serve a nice method as well. If you take a look at Skyrim this has basically be done by modders already. And they basically only tweaked numerical values in the game.

So basically if it is the case that these values are accounted for in the code, I think a skeleton crew of devs would be enough to pull this off albeit it would take them some time, however it should not eat up too many resources from the regular content development.

As the devs mentioned they don't have any current plans, but in the near future we might see something

@Sadetius Believe it or not, I'm fully behind an optional difficulty for those who want it. I know I tend to post a lot of negative post's towards these types of threads... but that's mainly for the "make it harder for everyone! They'll git gud or leave!" types. *shrugs*

Another advantage of starting small - with delves... heck even maybe just 1 delve at a time, is it would allow ZOS the ability to tweak and change things till it's working & satisfactorily much easier I think - well, depending just on how the back-end database is programmed.

If they can have separate databases for the delves, with different ai, different skills, stats, etc... they will have a lot smaller # of mobs and such to deal with. Much easier to tweak, find bugs, fix issue's, etc... rather than trying to do the whole overland in one big go.

And it also lets them see just how much extra strain on the server's doing this would be... on a smaller scale, which gives them a better idea of how much work they'd need to put into the server's to do more of it.

But I will say, your post was both insightful and well thought out.

LennoxPoodle

I asked a "newbie" for his opinion on the matter in another, hoping that it might help the discussion. So here it is:

maky87 wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your input on my thread so far : )

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

Also @maky87 What do you think about the overland (mobs + quest bosses, not world bosses, public dungeons or dolmens/geysirs/dragons) difficulty. There is a lengthy discussion going on about that aspect, for which the newbie perspective is very important.

Hi Lennox

I have only recently finished Cadwells Gold and Clockwork city, I have only just started Summerset.
I'm not sure I can give thoroughly experienced feedback on this but since you asked, so far:

Mobs: Difficulty seemed very appropriate at the initial 20 levels after which I felt a noticeable upturn in mob difficulty which prompted me to ask guildies for crafted gear at L32. The gear I received was Hundings iirc and that lasted me till about L50 with a few higher level items I replaced on the way there.

Quest bosses: I found this to be correctly tuned to be more difficult compared to regular mobs, they should be harder and you should die unless careful, as I did a few times.

Non-world bosses: I have not engaged in any non world bosses or world bosses so far.

Public dungeons: should be harder. I could solo these whereas they should require two or more people. Unless the definition of a public dungeon is something other than a group activity.

Dolmens: I feel these should be more difficult. By dolmen you mean those anchors right? then yes they need to be more difficult, whilst levelling I could not solo them but at max level with some decent gear I am able to.
I don't know what geysirs are yet sorry and dragons I have not come across any as I don't have the latest dragon expansion/dlc

Hope that helps.

Sadly, that kind of contradicts my own stance on the matter. :-(
But don't be selective with your evidence just to "win", that would be bad discussion culture.

MartiniDaniels

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

I asked a "newbie" for his opinion on the matter in another, hoping that it might help the discussion. So here it is:

maky87 wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your input on my thread so far : )

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

Also @maky87 What do you think about the overland (mobs + quest bosses, not world bosses, public dungeons or dolmens/geysirs/dragons) difficulty. There is a lengthy discussion going on about that aspect, for which the newbie perspective is very important.

Hi Lennox

I have only recently finished Cadwells Gold and Clockwork city, I have only just started Summerset.
I'm not sure I can give thoroughly experienced feedback on this but since you asked, so far:

Mobs: Difficulty seemed very appropriate at the initial 20 levels after which I felt a noticeable upturn in mob difficulty which prompted me to ask guildies for crafted gear at L32. The gear I received was Hundings iirc and that lasted me till about L50 with a few higher level items I replaced on the way there.

Quest bosses: I found this to be correctly tuned to be more difficult compared to regular mobs, they should be harder and you should die unless careful, as I did a few times.

Non-world bosses: I have not engaged in any non world bosses or world bosses so far.

Public dungeons: should be harder. I could solo these whereas they should require two or more people. Unless the definition of a public dungeon is something other than a group activity.

Dolmens: I feel these should be more difficult. By dolmen you mean those anchors right? then yes they need to be more difficult, whilst levelling I could not solo them but at max level with some decent gear I am able to.
I don't know what geysirs are yet sorry and dragons I have not come across any as I don't have the latest dragon expansion/dlc

Hope that helps.

Sadly, that kind of contradicts my own stance on the matter. :-(
But don't be selective with your evidence just to "win", that would be bad discussion culture.

Sounds quite strange, there is huge gap in difficulty of public dungeons and quest bosses, while this guy finds public dungeons easy and quest bosses reasonably hard.

LennoxPoodle

MartiniDaniels wrote: »

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

I asked a "newbie" for his opinion on the matter in another, hoping that it might help the discussion. So here it is:

maky87 wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your input on my thread so far : )

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

Also @maky87 What do you think about the overland (mobs + quest bosses, not world bosses, public dungeons or dolmens/geysirs/dragons) difficulty. There is a lengthy discussion going on about that aspect, for which the newbie perspective is very important.

Hi Lennox

I have only recently finished Cadwells Gold and Clockwork city, I have only just started Summerset.
I'm not sure I can give thoroughly experienced feedback on this but since you asked, so far:

Mobs: Difficulty seemed very appropriate at the initial 20 levels after which I felt a noticeable upturn in mob difficulty which prompted me to ask guildies for crafted gear at L32. The gear I received was Hundings iirc and that lasted me till about L50 with a few higher level items I replaced on the way there.

Quest bosses: I found this to be correctly tuned to be more difficult compared to regular mobs, they should be harder and you should die unless careful, as I did a few times.

Non-world bosses: I have not engaged in any non world bosses or world bosses so far.

Public dungeons: should be harder. I could solo these whereas they should require two or more people. Unless the definition of a public dungeon is something other than a group activity.

Dolmens: I feel these should be more difficult. By dolmen you mean those anchors right? then yes they need to be more difficult, whilst levelling I could not solo them but at max level with some decent gear I am able to.
I don't know what geysirs are yet sorry and dragons I have not come across any as I don't have the latest dragon expansion/dlc

Hope that helps.

Sadly, that kind of contradicts my own stance on the matter. :-(
But don't be selective with your evidence just to "win", that would be bad discussion culture.

Sounds quite strange, there is huge gap in difficulty of public dungeons and quest bosses, while this guy finds public dungeons easy and quest bosses reasonably hard.

I wondered about that one too. I guess he meant that in relation to what they are supposed to be?

RavenSworn

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

MartiniDaniels wrote: »

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

I asked a "newbie" for his opinion on the matter in another, hoping that it might help the discussion. So here it is:

maky87 wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your input on my thread so far : )

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

Also @maky87 What do you think about the overland (mobs + quest bosses, not world bosses, public dungeons or dolmens/geysirs/dragons) difficulty. There is a lengthy discussion going on about that aspect, for which the newbie perspective is very important.

Hi Lennox

I have only recently finished Cadwells Gold and Clockwork city, I have only just started Summerset.
I'm not sure I can give thoroughly experienced feedback on this but since you asked, so far:

Mobs: Difficulty seemed very appropriate at the initial 20 levels after which I felt a noticeable upturn in mob difficulty which prompted me to ask guildies for crafted gear at L32. The gear I received was Hundings iirc and that lasted me till about L50 with a few higher level items I replaced on the way there.

Quest bosses: I found this to be correctly tuned to be more difficult compared to regular mobs, they should be harder and you should die unless careful, as I did a few times.

Non-world bosses: I have not engaged in any non world bosses or world bosses so far.

Public dungeons: should be harder. I could solo these whereas they should require two or more people. Unless the definition of a public dungeon is something other than a group activity.

Dolmens: I feel these should be more difficult. By dolmen you mean those anchors right? then yes they need to be more difficult, whilst levelling I could not solo them but at max level with some decent gear I am able to.
I don't know what geysirs are yet sorry and dragons I have not come across any as I don't have the latest dragon expansion/dlc

Hope that helps.

Sadly, that kind of contradicts my own stance on the matter. :-(
But don't be selective with your evidence just to "win", that would be bad discussion culture.

Sounds quite strange, there is huge gap in difficulty of public dungeons and quest bosses, while this guy finds public dungeons easy and quest bosses reasonably hard.

I wondered about that one too. I guess he meant that in relation to what they are supposed to be?

How would public dungeon bosses be easier than quest bosses.. I'm intrigued.

Linaleah

RavenSworn wrote: »

Kamatsu wrote: »

Jhalin wrote: »

“The sky will implode if the game dares to challenge a player to get better as they play!!”

No, the game would be fine. Why is it people have such little belief in players these days?

We can’t have a chance for failure! All our players are big pssbabies who’ll quit because their naked, weaponless char can’t kill the super powerful mage! (/s)

Because that IS the reality of today's gamers? They *WILL* quit a game if the game gets too hard for them, or suddenly changes from an easy game they can solo to something that close-to requires grouping (for them).

Most players of online games don't have the inclination to try and learn/relearn games, strats, plan out builds, improve their gameplay, etc ... they will grab a build guide and play to that, and if it doesn't work or they can't just spam the 1st skill they get to succeed... they will *quit* the game and go elsewhere.

I'll bring it up again - ANet with GW2's HoT expansion tried the whole 'Offer a challenge" thing, and "grouping is encouraged" thing.. you could still solo it, but it was a lot harder and the mob placement, skill use, etc encouraged travel with other players. They listened to people who said there were huge # of players craving harder gameplay, gameplay that punished players for more challenge, that players would step-up and learn and git gud and do better...

They suffered the biggest 6-month loss in revenue that they had EVER suffered in both Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2. The forums filled up with complaint after complaint from players about how the expansion was too hard, that it was too challenging, couldn't be solo'ed (it could be, but was harder and required re-doing strats, builds, etc)... and within weeks of the launch the forums were filled with threads complaining that the maps were dead, that there was nobody playing the expansion, that even the base game felt dead and deserted.

ANet tried the 'players are smart and will git gud' thing. They had a 67% loss of revenue over 6-months and a huge loss of players.

Other MMO's have tried the hard thing...

Wildstar - dead

Neverwinter - they recently tried making their newer content harder, requiring players 'git gud' and look at changing builds/strats, more focus on possibly grouping up, etc... they suffered player loss and revenue loss as well. They ended up having to nerf the content to try and stop the player loss.

WoW - Cataclysm's dungeons were harder the prior. Guess what? Massive complains about this and players left. They did nerf the dungeons to be 'easier'

This is just something people have to realize and accept - players as a whole will not get better or more skillfull, will not change and/or adjust builds if the game gets tougher as they play... they will keep playing their way till it gets too hard and/or unenjoyable for them, and then quit and leave the game for other games that they can breeze through without thought.

---

A thought for those wanting challenge in openworld - why not start small, and instead of pushing ZOS for a harder openworld (as that is a huge endeavor that will cost a lot of $$$ to do)... you instead push for an optional 'instanced' difficulty.

So push for an optional difficulty that will only effect content that gets instanced... and thus can have 2 completely separate instances... one for the normal players and another for the 'harder content' playes - such as Delves & public dungeons.

Why? Because it would likely take less $$$ for ZOS to edit Delves/PD's mobs for more hp, damage, the skillset used, etc, which means ZOS would be more likely to actually do this. It would also be a way for you to show ZOS just how many people are craving harder fights - if there is as many people as you all feel that there is... then the #'s ZOS see's would support this.

And this way you could show that there is a good business case for ZOS to work on trying to provide you with an optional harder overland, but separated from other players so they do not cut into their casual players either.

Thanks for the different perspective. I rather listen to reasonable arguments like this then just "omgwtf you epeen whiner".

My suggestion to the optional difficulty would be to create a veteran mode for the characters themselves, for eg a 10-15% reduction (or even up to 30%) on player stats. This will be overall stats and not just base stats. Dub this as veteran mode / ironmode. There's not much work done needed by ZoS, there will still be interaction between the new and vet players, no need for phasing or instancing, no change needed for the mobs and quest bosses. It will also only affect overland, delves, public dungeons and solo instances (story quests, not vma)

I'm still on the fence on incentives for this mode. Increasing the chances for higher quality loot might be a good start imo. No need to increase the quality of the loot.

I've been litteraly saying the same thing as the reply you quoted for PAGES AND PAGES.

but I'm glad that you are listening to someone at least.

that said, debuff to player is not going to do it. there are other players around and they can inadvertently "ruin your fun" by seeing you maybe having some struggle and joining in to help. it really has to be instanced by difficulty, there is NOT other way for everyone to have their cake and eat it too.

Linaleah

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

MartiniDaniels wrote: »

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

I asked a "newbie" for his opinion on the matter in another, hoping that it might help the discussion. So here it is:

maky87 wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your input on my thread so far : )

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

Also @maky87 What do you think about the overland (mobs + quest bosses, not world bosses, public dungeons or dolmens/geysirs/dragons) difficulty. There is a lengthy discussion going on about that aspect, for which the newbie perspective is very important.

Hi Lennox

I have only recently finished Cadwells Gold and Clockwork city, I have only just started Summerset.
I'm not sure I can give thoroughly experienced feedback on this but since you asked, so far:

Mobs: Difficulty seemed very appropriate at the initial 20 levels after which I felt a noticeable upturn in mob difficulty which prompted me to ask guildies for crafted gear at L32. The gear I received was Hundings iirc and that lasted me till about L50 with a few higher level items I replaced on the way there.

Quest bosses: I found this to be correctly tuned to be more difficult compared to regular mobs, they should be harder and you should die unless careful, as I did a few times.

Non-world bosses: I have not engaged in any non world bosses or world bosses so far.

Public dungeons: should be harder. I could solo these whereas they should require two or more people. Unless the definition of a public dungeon is something other than a group activity.

Dolmens: I feel these should be more difficult. By dolmen you mean those anchors right? then yes they need to be more difficult, whilst levelling I could not solo them but at max level with some decent gear I am able to.
I don't know what geysirs are yet sorry and dragons I have not come across any as I don't have the latest dragon expansion/dlc

Hope that helps.

Sadly, that kind of contradicts my own stance on the matter. :-(
But don't be selective with your evidence just to "win", that would be bad discussion culture.

Sounds quite strange, there is huge gap in difficulty of public dungeons and quest bosses, while this guy finds public dungeons easy and quest bosses reasonably hard.

I wondered about that one too. I guess he meant that in relation to what they are supposed to be?

did he mean public dungeon bosses or delves? delve bosses ARE pretty easy, often easier then quest bosses. delves are also meant to be solo content. public dungeon bosses are certainly NOT easier then quest bosses, unless there just so happened to be other players around.

LennoxPoodle

RavenSworn wrote: »

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

MartiniDaniels wrote: »

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

I asked a "newbie" for his opinion on the matter in another, hoping that it might help the discussion. So here it is:

maky87 wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your input on my thread so far : )

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

Also @maky87 What do you think about the overland (mobs + quest bosses, not world bosses, public dungeons or dolmens/geysirs/dragons) difficulty. There is a lengthy discussion going on about that aspect, for which the newbie perspective is very important.

Hi Lennox

I have only recently finished Cadwells Gold and Clockwork city, I have only just started Summerset.
I'm not sure I can give thoroughly experienced feedback on this but since you asked, so far:

Mobs: Difficulty seemed very appropriate at the initial 20 levels after which I felt a noticeable upturn in mob difficulty which prompted me to ask guildies for crafted gear at L32. The gear I received was Hundings iirc and that lasted me till about L50 with a few higher level items I replaced on the way there.

Quest bosses: I found this to be correctly tuned to be more difficult compared to regular mobs, they should be harder and you should die unless careful, as I did a few times.

Non-world bosses: I have not engaged in any non world bosses or world bosses so far.

Public dungeons: should be harder. I could solo these whereas they should require two or more people. Unless the definition of a public dungeon is something other than a group activity.

Dolmens: I feel these should be more difficult. By dolmen you mean those anchors right? then yes they need to be more difficult, whilst levelling I could not solo them but at max level with some decent gear I am able to.
I don't know what geysirs are yet sorry and dragons I have not come across any as I don't have the latest dragon expansion/dlc

Hope that helps.

Sadly, that kind of contradicts my own stance on the matter. :-(
But don't be selective with your evidence just to "win", that would be bad discussion culture.

Sounds quite strange, there is huge gap in difficulty of public dungeons and quest bosses, while this guy finds public dungeons easy and quest bosses reasonably hard.

I wondered about that one too. I guess he meant that in relation to what they are supposed to be?

How would public dungeon bosses be easier than quest bosses.. I'm intrigued.

It can be easier for the intended group size than the quest boss for the (intended) single player.

albesca

RavenSworn wrote: »

How would public dungeon bosses be easier than quest bosses.. I'm intrigued.

I think that he simply expected pubilc dungeons to not be soloable at all, while quest stuff is supposed to be done solo.

MEBengalsFan2001

The reason games like WOW and Eeverquest back in the early 2000's took teams to complete overland content is that those game required a bit more from players and players were more willing to invest more time into the game to achieve those ends.

Times have changed; we have moved onto people grinding out for days, weeks, and months on end for the truly best item to where players are now looking for the quickest and easiest way to reach end game. Most games, even those with some grinding set into the game provides players the option to reach end game faster. ESO has potions to help us reach level 50 faster and champion points are shared across the account. Even now they offer the ability to buy the Sky shards through the store.

Welcome to 2019, where things are made to be easier and less challenging. This allows more players to get into the game. With that said, game do provide elite players a way to show off their skill by having leader boards in PVP and even PVE now.

Iccotak wrote: »

Asking for no Attributes is silly However I have been playing a Necromancer with no CP, and no crafted sets, and no food.
And I agree with OP the single player overland content is Far Too Easy. Being an MMO the game should encourage people to work together and even if it's solo-able, doesn't mean it should be So Easy.
For example World of Warcraft in classic days was difficult enough that players decided to work together to complete quests, it wasn't a forced requirement but it certainly made things easier for them and encouraged people to be social.

Below is a section from my post critique of Elsweyr and the game
Link: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/475780/spoilers-elsweyr-player-critiques

Overland content is so depressingly easy for new players, you could watch new characters in the zone just curbstomp everything with ease. Overland doesn't need to be as hard as Craglorn, or a dungeon, or a Trial. But I am certain that new players could handle zones that were closer to the difficulty of a public dungeon.

ZOS seems to only do their best and most interesting PvE combat for group content, meanwhile the only challenging solo content is the maelstrom arena from the Orsinium DLC which came out 4 years ago. We know that ZOS is capable of designing more challenging solo content

Just because the zone is designed to be solo-able doesn't mean that the solo content has to be boringly easy. With how powerful players can be at the start, they could certainly take on 4-5 enemies at a time that had a smarter Ai as well as more variation in their combat mechanics.
I don’t agree with Forcing players to group but I would suggest difficulty to encourage players to work together to complete content while still being solo-able by single players.

Linaleah

MEBengalsFan2001 wrote: »

The reason games like WOW and Eeverquest back in the early 2000's took teams to complete overland content is that those game required a bit more from players and players were more willing to invest more time into the game to achieve those ends.

Times have changed; we have moved onto people grinding out for days, weeks, and months on end for the truly best item to where players are now looking for the quickest and easiest way to reach end game. Most games, even those with some grinding set into the game provides players the option to reach end game faster. ESO has potions to help us reach level 50 faster and champion points are shared across the account. Even now they offer the ability to buy the Sky shards through the store.

Welcome to 2019, where things are made to be easier and less challenging. This allows more players to get into the game. With that said, game do provide elite players a way to show off their skill by having leader boards in PVP and even PVE now.

Iccotak wrote: »

Asking for no Attributes is silly However I have been playing a Necromancer with no CP, and no crafted sets, and no food.
And I agree with OP the single player overland content is Far Too Easy. Being an MMO the game should encourage people to work together and even if it's solo-able, doesn't mean it should be So Easy.
For example World of Warcraft in classic days was difficult enough that players decided to work together to complete quests, it wasn't a forced requirement but it certainly made things easier for them and encouraged people to be social.

Below is a section from my post critique of Elsweyr and the game
Link: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/475780/spoilers-elsweyr-player-critiques

Overland content is so depressingly easy for new players, you could watch new characters in the zone just curbstomp everything with ease. Overland doesn't need to be as hard as Craglorn, or a dungeon, or a Trial. But I am certain that new players could handle zones that were closer to the difficulty of a public dungeon.

ZOS seems to only do their best and most interesting PvE combat for group content, meanwhile the only challenging solo content is the maelstrom arena from the Orsinium DLC which came out 4 years ago. We know that ZOS is capable of designing more challenging solo content

Just because the zone is designed to be solo-able doesn't mean that the solo content has to be boringly easy. With how powerful players can be at the start, they could certainly take on 4-5 enemies at a time that had a smarter Ai as well as more variation in their combat mechanics.
I don’t agree with Forcing players to group but I would suggest difficulty to encourage players to work together to complete content while still being solo-able by single players.

every time people bring up classic WoW as an example of challenge, a few more of my braincells die. the reason, the MAIN reason why WoW became so successful is BECAUSE IT WAS CASUAL AND EASY. becasue it was the first MMO on the market that was SOLO FRIENDLY. Everquest all but required grouping. WoW? did NOT. that was the whole point. that it was the easy and casual friendly MMO. no other MMO at the time offered that.

success of WoW and mmo's becoming mainstream was literally due to the exact opposite of what you all are claiming.

MEBengalsFan2001

Linaleah wrote: »

MEBengalsFan2001 wrote: »

The reason games like WOW and Eeverquest back in the early 2000's took teams to complete overland content is that those game required a bit more from players and players were more willing to invest more time into the game to achieve those ends.

Times have changed; we have moved onto people grinding out for days, weeks, and months on end for the truly best item to where players are now looking for the quickest and easiest way to reach end game. Most games, even those with some grinding set into the game provides players the option to reach end game faster. ESO has potions to help us reach level 50 faster and champion points are shared across the account. Even now they offer the ability to buy the Sky shards through the store.

Welcome to 2019, where things are made to be easier and less challenging. This allows more players to get into the game. With that said, game do provide elite players a way to show off their skill by having leader boards in PVP and even PVE now.

Iccotak wrote: »

Asking for no Attributes is silly However I have been playing a Necromancer with no CP, and no crafted sets, and no food.
And I agree with OP the single player overland content is Far Too Easy. Being an MMO the game should encourage people to work together and even if it's solo-able, doesn't mean it should be So Easy.
For example World of Warcraft in classic days was difficult enough that players decided to work together to complete quests, it wasn't a forced requirement but it certainly made things easier for them and encouraged people to be social.

Below is a section from my post critique of Elsweyr and the game
Link: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/475780/spoilers-elsweyr-player-critiques

Overland content is so depressingly easy for new players, you could watch new characters in the zone just curbstomp everything with ease. Overland doesn't need to be as hard as Craglorn, or a dungeon, or a Trial. But I am certain that new players could handle zones that were closer to the difficulty of a public dungeon.

ZOS seems to only do their best and most interesting PvE combat for group content, meanwhile the only challenging solo content is the maelstrom arena from the Orsinium DLC which came out 4 years ago. We know that ZOS is capable of designing more challenging solo content

Just because the zone is designed to be solo-able doesn't mean that the solo content has to be boringly easy. With how powerful players can be at the start, they could certainly take on 4-5 enemies at a time that had a smarter Ai as well as more variation in their combat mechanics.
I don’t agree with Forcing players to group but I would suggest difficulty to encourage players to work together to complete content while still being solo-able by single players.

every time people bring up classic WoW as an example of challenge, a few more of my braincells die. the reason, the MAIN reason why WoW became so successful is BECAUSE IT WAS CASUAL AND EASY. becasue it was the first MMO on the market that was SOLO FRIENDLY. Everquest all but required grouping. WoW? did NOT. that was the whole point. that it was the easy and casual friendly MMO. no other MMO at the time offered that.

success of WoW and mmo's becoming mainstream was literally due to the exact opposite of what you all are claiming.

WoW was not all easy at launch. That changed over time. WoW at launch was a bit more challenging and closer to Everquest than many games are today. Games today allow players to jump into the game and be nearly end game ready in less than week. You could not do that originally with WoW or Everquest; you needed to grind your butt off to get to end game.

In fact, some games allow you to buy your way to end game.

ESO is at an in between game where we have ways to get to end game quicker but we cannot simply buy our way to end game like some F2P games have. And ESO is not like Everquest where you have to grind with a group for months on end to reach end game.

Most games are becoming way more EASY to please the masses. The players who want harder content are a small niche group. And when the devs deliver truly good challenging content, part of that niche group than gripes about how difficult the content is most content if not all content is typically designed for average or below average player.

I use to enjoy extremely difficult content that took hours and hours to beat. However, things have changed for me and now I don't have the time to sit in a raid for 2-3 hours trying to beat it. I don't have the time to even do 2 hours of gaming a night. So for me casual gaming is what I seek and if it is easy that is fine to; since it will allow me to complete more content. That is the type of player that most MMO games are now being designed around. Players who have less than 2 hours a day to play and want to beat dungeons and open land area rather quickly so they can get more done in the game.

Myrm

MEBengalsFan2001 wrote: »

...most MMO games are now being designed around. Players who have less than 2 hours a day to play and want to beat dungeons and open land area rather quickly so they can get more done in the game.

Is that just your opinion or is this actually stated somewhere?

maky87

albesca wrote: »

RavenSworn wrote: »

How would public dungeon bosses be easier than quest bosses.. I'm intrigued.

I think that he simply expected pubilc dungeons to not be soloable at all, while quest stuff is supposed to be done solo.

This is exactly what I meant. Sorry for not being clear.

MEBengalsFan2001

Myrm wrote: »

MEBengalsFan2001 wrote: »

...most MMO games are now being designed around. Players who have less than 2 hours a day to play and want to beat dungeons and open land area rather quickly so they can get more done in the game.

Is that just your opinion or is this actually stated somewhere?

That is from playing a variety of MMO games. Why do you think it is so easy to go from starting the game to reaching end game in less than a week and that is just playing the game 2 hours a day. Most games allow players to reach end game with 10-20 hours. That is a joke.

Myrm

MEBengalsFan2001 wrote: »

...That is from playing a variety of MMO games. Why do you think it is so easy to go from starting the game to reaching end game in less than a week and that is just playing the game 2 hours a day. Most games allow players to reach end game with 10-20 hours. That is a joke.

Fair point. Yes, I must admit, I hate it when games have only 10-20 hours content. I like games that offer so much more.

AmberInChains72

[/quote]
[/quote]

every time people bring up classic WoW as an example of challenge, a few more of my braincells die. the reason, the MAIN reason why WoW became so successful is BECAUSE IT WAS CASUAL AND EASY. becasue it was the first MMO on the market that was SOLO FRIENDLY. Everquest all but required grouping. WoW? did NOT. that was the whole point. that it was the easy and casual friendly MMO. no other MMO at the time offered that.success of WoW and mmo's becoming mainstream was literally due to the exact opposite of what you all are claiming.[/quote]

I know. Whenever I see people claim “Omg WoW classic was a real challenge”, I always get ptsd flashbacks from my EQ days. I was in a hardcore raiding guild and remember the fights over mobs, zones, etc. Camp checks. Corpse runs that sometimes took your whole day. You had to group and you better have the holy trinity “cleric,tank,enchanter” in your group. Then for damage a wizard or two or a rogue or monk. Researching spells that have rare components that only drop off of some super raid boss that took like 70 plus people to kill and only spawned once in 5 days. No instancing. Even at max level and max AA points a lot of mobs could still one shot you. Or my personal favorite, your guild leader calling you at 3am because a certain mob is up and we had to get online. Because that boss drops a super rare chest piece for clerics. The best in the game. Oh and did I mention the drop rates were horrible?

I did have a blast playing EQ though. I met some of my closest friends, who twenty years later are still close friends. WoW was ok but the overall community was awful.

So now here I am starting ESO, I don’t have the time I did back in my EQ days. I can play my favorite class (Templar). I like the fact I can solo a lot. That I can play the way I want to. I also don’t mind that there is harder content for the hardcore players.It seems to me that both can coexist. But I highly doubt the hardcore ESO players want an EQ level hardmode. EQ burned me out after 6 years. And to my surprise it’s still going! I know one guy who has about 1500 days played!

TL;DR EQ hard. WoW medium. ESO has room for both. Just enjoy the game 😁

Linaleah

MEBengalsFan2001 wrote: »

Linaleah wrote: »

MEBengalsFan2001 wrote: »

The reason games like WOW and Eeverquest back in the early 2000's took teams to complete overland content is that those game required a bit more from players and players were more willing to invest more time into the game to achieve those ends.

Times have changed; we have moved onto people grinding out for days, weeks, and months on end for the truly best item to where players are now looking for the quickest and easiest way to reach end game. Most games, even those with some grinding set into the game provides players the option to reach end game faster. ESO has potions to help us reach level 50 faster and champion points are shared across the account. Even now they offer the ability to buy the Sky shards through the store.

Welcome to 2019, where things are made to be easier and less challenging. This allows more players to get into the game. With that said, game do provide elite players a way to show off their skill by having leader boards in PVP and even PVE now.

Iccotak wrote: »

Asking for no Attributes is silly However I have been playing a Necromancer with no CP, and no crafted sets, and no food.
And I agree with OP the single player overland content is Far Too Easy. Being an MMO the game should encourage people to work together and even if it's solo-able, doesn't mean it should be So Easy.
For example World of Warcraft in classic days was difficult enough that players decided to work together to complete quests, it wasn't a forced requirement but it certainly made things easier for them and encouraged people to be social.

Below is a section from my post critique of Elsweyr and the game
Link: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/475780/spoilers-elsweyr-player-critiques

Overland content is so depressingly easy for new players, you could watch new characters in the zone just curbstomp everything with ease. Overland doesn't need to be as hard as Craglorn, or a dungeon, or a Trial. But I am certain that new players could handle zones that were closer to the difficulty of a public dungeon.

ZOS seems to only do their best and most interesting PvE combat for group content, meanwhile the only challenging solo content is the maelstrom arena from the Orsinium DLC which came out 4 years ago. We know that ZOS is capable of designing more challenging solo content

Just because the zone is designed to be solo-able doesn't mean that the solo content has to be boringly easy. With how powerful players can be at the start, they could certainly take on 4-5 enemies at a time that had a smarter Ai as well as more variation in their combat mechanics.
I don’t agree with Forcing players to group but I would suggest difficulty to encourage players to work together to complete content while still being solo-able by single players.

every time people bring up classic WoW as an example of challenge, a few more of my braincells die. the reason, the MAIN reason why WoW became so successful is BECAUSE IT WAS CASUAL AND EASY. becasue it was the first MMO on the market that was SOLO FRIENDLY. Everquest all but required grouping. WoW? did NOT. that was the whole point. that it was the easy and casual friendly MMO. no other MMO at the time offered that.

success of WoW and mmo's becoming mainstream was literally due to the exact opposite of what you all are claiming.

WoW was not all easy at launch. That changed over time. WoW at launch was a bit more challenging and closer to Everquest than many games are today. Games today allow players to jump into the game and be nearly end game ready in less than week. You could not do that originally with WoW or Everquest; you needed to grind your butt off to get to end game.

In fact, some games allow you to buy your way to end game.

ESO is at an in between game where we have ways to get to end game quicker but we cannot simply buy our way to end game like some F2P games have. And ESO is not like Everquest where you have to grind with a group for months on end to reach end game.

Most games are becoming way more EASY to please the masses. The players who want harder content are a small niche group. And when the devs deliver truly good challenging content, part of that niche group than gripes about how difficult the content is most content if not all content is typically designed for average or below average player.

I use to enjoy extremely difficult content that took hours and hours to beat. However, things have changed for me and now I don't have the time to sit in a raid for 2-3 hours trying to beat it. I don't have the time to even do 2 hours of gaming a night. So for me casual gaming is what I seek and if it is easy that is fine to; since it will allow me to complete more content. That is the type of player that most MMO games are now being designed around. Players who have less than 2 hours a day to play and want to beat dungeons and open land area rather quickly so they can get more done in the game.

compared to everything else on the market at the time, WoW was practically brain dead easy, to use the vernacular some of you like to use. it was never particularly challenging.

what it was.. and what ESO is despite the outdated concept of endgame people keep trying to shove at it - is an ongoing journey that you could undertake completely solo or with friends if you wished. and you can do so in small chunks at a time. oh dungeons could take a while, but you didn't have to do dungeons. you could just quest here and there, explore a little. picks some herbs, some ore. random casual solo things. That soloability and ability to play a little and still feel like you accomplished something was in WoW from the start. endgame was.. kinda there, sorta, but the point was the journey.

the only thing ESO change was scale it so that you could keep having that journey and for it to be still relevant even after you reached "max level" while in WoW, eventualy you would outlevel the zones and mobs and rewards would be gray to you. when people say that ESO has 10 hours of content just because it takes that long (IF YOU GRIND WITH XP SCROLLS) to get to level 50 is just... sad. its like despite ZoS creating all these stories to play through and then making them all relevant with One Tamriel - they suddenly seize to exist at lvl 50? they don't. all these stories, all that content - its still all there, still relevant. kinda the point.