Maintenance for the week of May 20:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – May 20
• NA megaservers for maintenance – May 22, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – May 22, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT)
• ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – May 22, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 6:00PM EDT (22:00 UTC) https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/658773
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – May 20
• NA megaservers for maintenance – May 22, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – May 22, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT)
• ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – May 22, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 6:00PM EDT (22:00 UTC) https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/658773
Normal and Veteran Overland
-
Thechuckage✭✭✭✭✭For what exactly? Tell me one reason why should the veteran zones work now?
They were not working before. Now what would be different?
Maybe because the game has changed drastically? Lessons learned on forced grouping, drastic change to player overall capability.
If they went down the same road as old Crag then yes it would fail. No has asked for old Crag back. Many of us have voiced opposition to any enforced grouping. Heck the new companions are meant to help people without needing to group up.
Old Crag is dead, it can't hurt you.2 -
Ergele✭✭✭Since zos let us have this conversation for 10 pages I think they are reading this post1
-
Alurria✭✭✭✭✭
✭Doesn't mean a thing, it means we have had to endure this for 10 pages. I think hanging your hat on what a dev said one time is a mistake. People wonder why the devs don't communicate it's a perfect example of taking something so small as them saying they had looked at it one time.
No one knows what they can or can't afford to do, but common sense dictates you don't repeat the same mistakes twice. It wasn't just forced grouping that destroyed craglorn it was the difficulty. I know more people who quit because of it and I was one of those people. I didn't play for almost two years could be more. If the difficulty in this game increases again yeah I would find a different game and I know I'm not alone.
I do not believe they will shoot themselves in the foot making that same mistake twice it's not a good business decision. Sure go ahead and ask for a special instance that is harder, but if you are asking for more rewards then this is what it's truly about. Wanting better items for not doing the content the devs designate as vet content. Then you are not a vet but a player who wants vet items for not doing vet content. Yeah me too. It's not going to happen but yeah I can wish.5 -
CP5✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭No, old craglorn died because it was full of mobs designed to be tackled by a group (ie, lots of stupid enemies) and was filled to the brim with instanced quest (so if you had a group going you had to stop whenever someone left else they couldn't catch up.) Those are what made old craglron good for nothing other than farming vet levels. We are asking for enemies that don't waste their entire time during a fight figuring out which end of the sword goes where, and all you need to do is walk into the middle of a group of mobs to see just how little of a threat they pose.
How is asking for an instance of zones with halfway competent enemies, that will encourage people to actually engage with the story lines they put so much time into, that is an option, so you won't have to worry about being 'being forced to leave the game', a bad thing? They added the sticker book, took time but there it is, they are adding companions, took time as well, but adding something that is already in game, separate difficulty instances, that is too hard for them? Please try to realize just how trivial different zone instances is for them to make as opposed to the companions.5 -
Alurria✭✭✭✭✭
✭No, old craglorn died because it was full of mobs designed to be tackled by a group (ie, lots of stupid enemies) and was filled to the brim with instanced quest (so if you had a group going you had to stop whenever someone left else they couldn't catch up.) Those are what made old craglron good for nothing other than farming vet levels. We are asking for enemies that don't waste their entire time during a fight figuring out which end of the sword goes where, and all you need to do is walk into the middle of a group of mobs to see just how little of a threat they pose.
How is asking for an instance of zones with halfway competent enemies, that will encourage people to actually engage with the story lines they put so much time into, that is an option, so you won't have to worry about being 'being forced to leave the game', a bad thing? They added the sticker book, took time but there it is, they are adding companions, took time as well, but adding something that is already in game, separate difficulty instances, that is too hard for them? Please try to realize just how trivial different zone instances is for them to make as opposed to the companions.
I disagree with you, I was here I was on the forums forced grouping played a role but so did the difficulty of the zone and the difficulty of silver and gold. Rose colored glasses are still rosey. What is proposed seems like a waste of the devs time to me when they can design new content for those who want more difficulty. That's my opinion and no one can change it or make it wrong because that is my view. No one has to agree with me and I could careless if they don't. My opinion is no less valid then anyone elses.4 -
CP5✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭With how many players who are asking for it, how many players ignore year long stories because the quest that make their core are so underwhelming, with how poorly the game prepares and engages new players, I think those more than make an optional higher difficulty overland worth it. And as said before, the tools to do this are already there.4 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »Thechuckage wrote: »GW actually has a better system for this. Squash a player down to the zones level. You are still more powerful by simply having more skills and stats on gear but not a walking forest fire.
It has been suggested that players could have the option to be "squashed" down to the zone's level, or that quest bosses could have a optional scroll to increase their difficulty, but the players asking for this don't want that. They want veteran overland with veteran quest bosses that can be killed repeatedly, which they have suggested more than once. This would put quest bosses on farm as a way to get veteran gear without having to step foot into veteran dungeons or trials.
The whole point of an RPG game is to grow stronger so you can take on greater challenges. That is the basic structure of the genre and the whole purpose of having "levels" to begin with. So this idea that players should intentionally weaken themselves to make things more challenging is antithetical to everything that makes RPG games fun and addictive.
This thread is requesting an option for more challenging overland. That is accomplished one of two ways. Nerfing the character of buffing the HP and damage of the NPCs which is ofc still a nerf to the character.
Granted, I do not have tons of experience in ESO but from what I have seen of vet dungeons they tend to just add more HP to the bosses and have them do more damage compared to their non-vet counterpart. Is that more challenging? Not really but it is what one should expect if Zos created a vet instance for each zone.
I hope that some of the more advanced dungeons actually adds some mechanics as the difficulty is increased, though I know they will basically still nerf the character by merely adding HP and increase the damage of NPCs.
Yeah, that's essentially all a Veteran Dungeon is - a normal dungeon scaled to a higher level so the mobs have more health, defense and offense.
We disagree that it doesn't make it more challenging, though. I believe it does. When an enemy has more health and defense, and hits harder it makes it to where you have to actually employ methods of survival instead of just running them over like a mac truck.
True that if someone was basically ignoring the mechanics with the lesser difficulty they may find it more challenging because they have to start paying attention to avoid the damage as long as it became meaningful damage.
I suppose that I was using the term challenging to suggest complexity. I will restate that I have not find the fights more complex. As such they are not much more interesting. It is my hope I will find some of the content increases the complexity and not just the simple buff HP and damage. I doubt this would happen for this suggestion.
I believe it would add some "complexity" to the gameplay in the sense players would actually have to consider the damage of their opponents as a threat and react accordingly, whether through reflex and/or build adjustments. IN other words: if an enemy is allowed to actually fight back - instead of just instantly becoming dead - then you will have added complexity just by the sheer fact the player actually has to consider their defenses and/or other survival options as well as their offense.
I get what you're saying though about mechanics. But honestly I'm not a fan of overly-complex mechanics, and prefer challenges based on individual performance in respect to their build and how they use it instead of possessing inside knowledge about how any particular fight is scripted.
We will have to agree to disagree as I see no complexity added if the fight is identical to what it was. It is why most well-designed usually raids have added mechanics on the more difficult mode vs just buffing the HP and damage of the NPCs. Liking or disliking complex mechanics is a personal preference.0 -
CP5✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭How many asked for companions, the sticker book? ZOS is capable of doing things, and a majority of the people against the idea are the same ones using the same arguments against it. "Not worth the time/money", "Would require ZOS skipping out on other dlc", "Don't want content 'taken away' from them", "Don't want craglorn 2.0", and every time we have to remind them what the actual goal is. And citing a very biased poll isn't a strong point to stand on in saying those asking for a more engaging over world are using smoke and mirrors. But I suppose if the only arguments against it are "Overland is fine as is, get over it" then any conversation about this topic will end with those against the idea just filing out until the next thread pops up.3 -
Sevn✭✭✭✭✭
✭SilverBride wrote: »Sanguinor2 wrote: »OP is asking for a second difficulty, not for the current difficulty to be replaced so your prefered difficulty would still be just as it is now.
Easy mode for all hard content already exists. Its called normal.
It has been explained multiple times why this idea won't work. But let's look at this from an industry standard.
How many MMOs do you know of that have multiple difficulty levels of their base game? It is the standard in MMOs that the base game is for questing and leveling and telling the story, and the challenging content is in dungeons and raids or trials.
It is not reasonable that a completely new version of the base game be created and maintained on 4 different servers/ platforms just because some players don't want to play the challenging content that the game provides.
I think this is reasonable to have a few servers with different modes of play. Easy, normal, and vet 1 level for all content on a server and hard mode set for all content on another. PvP will be on its own server.
Budget and time is a real thing. What gets cut for all of this money they are spending on servers and extra workers to pump out this bonus content in a timely fashion?
An obvious suggestion would be to cut out one of the two yearly dungeon DLCs. Let the devs experiment with something a little different with a veteran overland difficulty.
And this is how it begins.
Cut out content the vast majority of the population will pay for and participate in for content only a handful want for free. This sure sounds like this optional content does indeed affect players who have no interest in it.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man, true nobility is being superior to your former self
-Hemingway3 -
Raegwyr✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »Sanguinor2 wrote: »OP is asking for a second difficulty, not for the current difficulty to be replaced so your prefered difficulty would still be just as it is now.
Easy mode for all hard content already exists. Its called normal.
It has been explained multiple times why this idea won't work. But let's look at this from an industry standard.
How many MMOs do you know of that have multiple difficulty levels of their base game? It is the standard in MMOs that the base game is for questing and leveling and telling the story, and the challenging content is in dungeons and raids or trials.
It is not reasonable that a completely new version of the base game be created and maintained on 4 different servers/ platforms just because some players don't want to play the challenging content that the game provides.
I think this is reasonable to have a few servers with different modes of play. Easy, normal, and vet 1 level for all content on a server and hard mode set for all content on another. PvP will be on its own server.
Budget and time is a real thing. What gets cut for all of this money they are spending on servers and extra workers to pump out this bonus content in a timely fashion?
An obvious suggestion would be to cut out one of the two yearly dungeon DLCs. Let the devs experiment with something a little different with a veteran overland difficulty.
And this is how it begins.
Cut out content the vast majority of the population will pay for and participate in for content only a handful want for free. This sure sounds like this optional content does indeed affect players who have no interest in it.
Most casual players dont play dlc dungeons, achievement completion percentage clearly indicates that. So his proposition was to cut out two dungeons played mostly by experienced players to provide feature that will be used mostly by experienced players.
What is your problem here?3 -
Sevn✭✭✭✭✭
✭SilverBride wrote: »Sanguinor2 wrote: »OP is asking for a second difficulty, not for the current difficulty to be replaced so your prefered difficulty would still be just as it is now.
Easy mode for all hard content already exists. Its called normal.
It has been explained multiple times why this idea won't work. But let's look at this from an industry standard.
How many MMOs do you know of that have multiple difficulty levels of their base game? It is the standard in MMOs that the base game is for questing and leveling and telling the story, and the challenging content is in dungeons and raids or trials.
It is not reasonable that a completely new version of the base game be created and maintained on 4 different servers/ platforms just because some players don't want to play the challenging content that the game provides.
I think this is reasonable to have a few servers with different modes of play. Easy, normal, and vet 1 level for all content on a server and hard mode set for all content on another. PvP will be on its own server.
Budget and time is a real thing. What gets cut for all of this money they are spending on servers and extra workers to pump out this bonus content in a timely fashion?
An obvious suggestion would be to cut out one of the two yearly dungeon DLCs. Let the devs experiment with something a little different with a veteran overland difficulty.
And this is how it begins.
Cut out content the vast majority of the population will pay for and participate in for content only a handful want for free. This sure sounds like this optional content does indeed affect players who have no interest in it.
Most casual players dont play dlc dungeons, achievement completion percentage clearly indicates that. So his proposition was to cut out two dungeons played mostly by experienced players to provide feature that will be used mostly by experienced players.
What is your problem here?
My problem is I'm an experienced vet player that does enjoy playing vet dlc's and would have a major problem losing one for an vet overland I'd only use to farm for the rewards.
I'm guessing you think ALL vet or even most vet players are unhappy with overland as well? Eyes roll.There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man, true nobility is being superior to your former self
-Hemingway3 -
Raegwyr✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »Sanguinor2 wrote: »OP is asking for a second difficulty, not for the current difficulty to be replaced so your prefered difficulty would still be just as it is now.
Easy mode for all hard content already exists. Its called normal.
It has been explained multiple times why this idea won't work. But let's look at this from an industry standard.
How many MMOs do you know of that have multiple difficulty levels of their base game? It is the standard in MMOs that the base game is for questing and leveling and telling the story, and the challenging content is in dungeons and raids or trials.
It is not reasonable that a completely new version of the base game be created and maintained on 4 different servers/ platforms just because some players don't want to play the challenging content that the game provides.
I think this is reasonable to have a few servers with different modes of play. Easy, normal, and vet 1 level for all content on a server and hard mode set for all content on another. PvP will be on its own server.
Budget and time is a real thing. What gets cut for all of this money they are spending on servers and extra workers to pump out this bonus content in a timely fashion?
An obvious suggestion would be to cut out one of the two yearly dungeon DLCs. Let the devs experiment with something a little different with a veteran overland difficulty.
And this is how it begins.
Cut out content the vast majority of the population will pay for and participate in for content only a handful want for free. This sure sounds like this optional content does indeed affect players who have no interest in it.
Most casual players dont play dlc dungeons, achievement completion percentage clearly indicates that. So his proposition was to cut out two dungeons played mostly by experienced players to provide feature that will be used mostly by experienced players.
What is your problem here?
My problem is I'm an experienced vet player that does enjoy playing vet dlc's and would have a major problem losing one for an vet overland I'd only use to farm for the rewards.
I'm guessing you think ALL vet or even most vet players are unhappy with overland as well? Eyes roll.
Most vet players i know dont care about overland because it was boring af for years. For me vet overalnd idea have many more pros then cons. It gives more exlerienced players something to do, adds weight to the stories for ppl who dont enjoy being treated like idiots, allows weaker player to actually learn something before going to vet dungeons (7 out of 10 ppl who pug random vets do like 8k dps and die not knowing that standing in red can kill or what is a roll dodge. Thats how overland prepare ppl for toughter content).
All of that while making second difficulty optional so ppl who like story mode can continue to do so. And most arguments against it is "no because no" or "no because it will cost". We are talking about huge corpo with funds which was bought by Microsoft. In terms of profit, like i said they can release vet option only for one new zone and see how many players would want to try that. I assure you, there will be a lot of players happy to test that (just scrap mechanic that require ppl to be in group to progress because this is something that killed craglorn, not difficulty)5 -
Sevn✭✭✭✭✭
✭SilverBride wrote: »Sanguinor2 wrote: »OP is asking for a second difficulty, not for the current difficulty to be replaced so your prefered difficulty would still be just as it is now.
Easy mode for all hard content already exists. Its called normal.
It has been explained multiple times why this idea won't work. But let's look at this from an industry standard.
How many MMOs do you know of that have multiple difficulty levels of their base game? It is the standard in MMOs that the base game is for questing and leveling and telling the story, and the challenging content is in dungeons and raids or trials.
It is not reasonable that a completely new version of the base game be created and maintained on 4 different servers/ platforms just because some players don't want to play the challenging content that the game provides.
I think this is reasonable to have a few servers with different modes of play. Easy, normal, and vet 1 level for all content on a server and hard mode set for all content on another. PvP will be on its own server.
Budget and time is a real thing. What gets cut for all of this money they are spending on servers and extra workers to pump out this bonus content in a timely fashion?
An obvious suggestion would be to cut out one of the two yearly dungeon DLCs. Let the devs experiment with something a little different with a veteran overland difficulty.
And this is how it begins.
Cut out content the vast majority of the population will pay for and participate in for content only a handful want for free. This sure sounds like this optional content does indeed affect players who have no interest in it.
Most casual players dont play dlc dungeons, achievement completion percentage clearly indicates that. So his proposition was to cut out two dungeons played mostly by experienced players to provide feature that will be used mostly by experienced players.
What is your problem here?
My problem is I'm an experienced vet player that does enjoy playing vet dlc's and would have a major problem losing one for an vet overland I'd only use to farm for the rewards.
I'm guessing you think ALL vet or even most vet players are unhappy with overland as well? Eyes roll.
Most vet players i know dont care about overland because it was boring af for years. For me vet overalnd idea have many more pros then cons. It gives more exlerienced players something to do, adds weight to the stories for ppl who dont enjoy being treated like idiots, allows weaker player to actually learn something before going to vet dungeons (7 out of 10 ppl who pug random vets do like 8k dps and die not knowing that standing in red can kill or what is a roll dodge. Thats how overland prepare ppl for toughter content).
All of that while making second difficulty optional so ppl who like story mode can continue to do so. And most arguments against it is "no because no" or "no because it will cost". We are talking about huge corpo with funds which was bought by Microsoft. In terms of profit, like i said they can release vet option only for one new zone and see how many players would want to try that. I assure you, there will be a lot of players happy to test that (just scrap mechanic that require ppl to be in group to progress because this is something that killed craglorn, not difficulty)
We have got to stop using personal experience as a meter to judge anything. Most vet players you know?
How about every vet player I personally know is against this for the very real problem of having content they now enjoy being cut out.
In just one of my guilds I have 200 plus members alone who are against this. All long time vets. Why? Because it's a never ending cycle that results in less content for the masses, both casuals and hardcore alike for content that will inevitably become as easy as any content before it.
Edited by Sevn on May 6, 2021 4:52PMThere is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man, true nobility is being superior to your former self
-Hemingway4 -
Raegwyr✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »Sanguinor2 wrote: »OP is asking for a second difficulty, not for the current difficulty to be replaced so your prefered difficulty would still be just as it is now.
Easy mode for all hard content already exists. Its called normal.
It has been explained multiple times why this idea won't work. But let's look at this from an industry standard.
How many MMOs do you know of that have multiple difficulty levels of their base game? It is the standard in MMOs that the base game is for questing and leveling and telling the story, and the challenging content is in dungeons and raids or trials.
It is not reasonable that a completely new version of the base game be created and maintained on 4 different servers/ platforms just because some players don't want to play the challenging content that the game provides.
I think this is reasonable to have a few servers with different modes of play. Easy, normal, and vet 1 level for all content on a server and hard mode set for all content on another. PvP will be on its own server.
Budget and time is a real thing. What gets cut for all of this money they are spending on servers and extra workers to pump out this bonus content in a timely fashion?
An obvious suggestion would be to cut out one of the two yearly dungeon DLCs. Let the devs experiment with something a little different with a veteran overland difficulty.
And this is how it begins.
Cut out content the vast majority of the population will pay for and participate in for content only a handful want for free. This sure sounds like this optional content does indeed affect players who have no interest in it.
Most casual players dont play dlc dungeons, achievement completion percentage clearly indicates that. So his proposition was to cut out two dungeons played mostly by experienced players to provide feature that will be used mostly by experienced players.
What is your problem here?
My problem is I'm an experienced vet player that does enjoy playing vet dlc's and would have a major problem losing one for an vet overland I'd only use to farm for the rewards.
I'm guessing you think ALL vet or even most vet players are unhappy with overland as well? Eyes roll.
Most vet players i know dont care about overland because it was boring af for years. For me vet overalnd idea have many more pros then cons. It gives more exlerienced players something to do, adds weight to the stories for ppl who dont enjoy being treated like idiots, allows weaker player to actually learn something before going to vet dungeons (7 out of 10 ppl who pug random vets do like 8k dps and die not knowing that standing in red can kill or what is a roll dodge. Thats how overland prepare ppl for toughter content).
All of that while making second difficulty optional so ppl who like story mode can continue to do so. And most arguments against it is "no because no" or "no because it will cost". We are talking about huge corpo with funds which was bought by Microsoft. In terms of profit, like i said they can release vet option only for one new zone and see how many players would want to try that. I assure you, there will be a lot of players happy to test that (just scrap mechanic that require ppl to be in group to progress because this is something that killed craglorn, not difficulty)
We have got to stop using personal experience as a meter to judge anything. Most vet players you know?
How about every vet player I personally know is against this for the very real problem of having content they now enjoy being cut out.
In just one of my guilds I have 200 plus members alone who are against this. All long time vets. Why? Because it's a never ending cycle that results in less content for the masses, both casuals and hardcore alike for content that will inevitably become as easy as any content before it.
As i understand you asked each one of those 200 players, right? And confirmed that each of them is a vet.
Frequency of threads about this issue that pop up on forum and fact that many youtubers who did a review mentioned that the game is too easy in overland allow me to suspect that there is a lot of players who want the same thing i do.
You might like the roleplay without any difficulty playstyle, okay for you. But stating that amount of players who disagree with you must be low just because is baffling.
3 -
Iccotak✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Doesn't mean a thing, it means we have had to endure this for 10 pages. I think hanging your hat on what a dev said one time is a mistake. People wonder why the devs don't communicate it's a perfect example of taking something so small as them saying they had looked at it one time.
No one knows what they can or can't afford to do, but common sense dictates you don't repeat the same mistakes twice. It wasn't just forced grouping that destroyed craglorn it was the difficulty. I know more people who quit because of it and I was one of those people. I didn't play for almost two years could be more. If the difficulty in this game increases again yeah I would find a different game and I know I'm not alone.
I do not believe they will shoot themselves in the foot making that same mistake twice it's not a good business decision.
Almost no one is asking them to make the same mistake twice what we are asking for is very different from craglorn.Sure go ahead and ask for a special instance that is harder, but if you are asking for more rewards then this is what it's truly about. Wanting better items for not doing the content the devs designate as vet content. Then you are not a vet but a player who wants vet items for not doing vet content. Yeah me too. It's not going to happen but yeah I can wish.
At most people have said increase the the chances of picking up blue/purple items.
And No it is not about the reward. We just understand that;
1. Very few people would play for the gameplay & challenge alone.
2. ZOS understands this which is why they have Never implemented an activity that offers no reward, because they want to maximize participation.The amount of capitol they would have to invest to make vet versions of all the overland AND make vet version of all future overland would be MONUMENTAL.
And you know this for a fact or are you making another claim? Are you their accountant too?
Also ESO is not some small struggling indie project, it is a successful MMO running for several years with a good population that is not only owned by Bethesda's parent company Zenimax but also now mega-corp Microsoft. They have the resources.Edited by Iccotak on May 6, 2021 7:12PM1 -
Ravensilver✭✭✭✭✭
Most casual players dont play dlc dungeons, achievement completion percentage clearly indicates that. So his proposition was to cut out two dungeons played mostly by experienced players to provide feature that will be used mostly by experienced players.
What is your problem here?
How do you define 'casual'?
It's a fallacy to think that people who play every evening but don't enjoy spending all their time doing vet content are 'casual'. And not all 'vet' players are automatically good players.
So why differentiate? Are we not *all* players who (more or less) enjoy the same game together. Some have more time, some less. Some enjoy one thing, some another. That does not make one type of player better than the other.... except in their own minds... >.<1 -
Mysticman✭✭✭
Wrong, it was the difficulty that keep player out of Craglorn. Even after being nerfed to make it more solo player friendly it's still the most difficult zone in the game and yet you still don't see large amount of players running around Craglorn. If the player population isn't interested in Craglorn why would they want all the other zones to have a options to make them like a Craglorn zone. If you want increased overland difficulty spend your time completing the Craglorn zone before asking for more Craglorn type of content.just scrap mechanic that require ppl to be in group to progress because this is something that killed craglorn, not difficultyEdited by Mysticman on May 6, 2021 7:23PM2 -
Iccotak✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
Wrong, it was the difficulty that keep player out of Craglorn. Even after being nerfed to make it more solo player friendly it's still the most difficult zone in the game and yet you still don't see large amount of players running around Craglorn.just scrap mechanic that require ppl to be in group to progress because this is something that killed craglorn, not difficulty
If the player population isn't interested in Craglorn why would they want all the other zones to have a options to make them like a Craglorn zone. If you want increased overland difficulty spend your time completing the Craglorn zone before asking for more Craglorn type of content.
You do know that Craglorn is still covered with "Group Areas" and Group activities right? That's what is keeping alot of players out - they have to get a group for a significant portion of the map.1 -
Iccotak✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »Thechuckage wrote: »GW actually has a better system for this. Squash a player down to the zones level. You are still more powerful by simply having more skills and stats on gear but not a walking forest fire.
It has been suggested that players could have the option to be "squashed" down to the zone's level, or that quest bosses could have a optional scroll to increase their difficulty, but the players asking for this don't want that. They want veteran overland with veteran quest bosses that can be killed repeatedly, which they have suggested more than once. This would put quest bosses on farm as a way to get veteran gear without having to step foot into veteran dungeons or trials.
I still am opposed to any improved rewards for doing vet overland content. No way any overland content should give dungeon specific gear. Better gear for vet overland would be a very bad idea. It would alienate much of the player base.
No one has said that overland should give gear found in Dungeons. - That makes no sense.
What people have said is just increase the rarity (blue/purple) chances of something being dropped.
"This would put quest bosses on farm as a way to get veteran gear without having to step foot into veteran dungeons or trials."
That is what I responded to. Vet gear was specifically mentioned.
Nobody asked for that if you read the original quote it was a baseless claim made by SilverBride.
Because I would agree with you that is a terrible and very dumb idea
Full SilverBride quote for context:It has been suggested that players could have the option to be "squashed" down to the zone's level, or that quest bosses could have a optional scroll to increase their difficulty, but the players asking for this don't want that. They want veteran overland with veteran quest bosses that can be killed repeatedly, which they have suggested more than once.
This would put quest bosses on farm as a way to get veteran gear without having to step foot into veteran dungeons or trials.
1. Yeah, I have said in the past that ZOS only seems to put any investment in mechanics and amazing fights for repeatable bosses. So I would like ZOS to give Story Bosses the same quality treatment in fights and if it takes making them repeatable then I can live with that. I want a story boss fight that is on par with ones in Dungeons.
2. NO One, Not a Single Person has said that Story Bosses should drop gear from Dungeons & Trials
Vet Quest Bosses should only offer higher quality versions (Purple quality Not perfected) of Zone Sets OR they should have their own sets that can be farmed.
I think the problem is, this starts as "we want more difficulty" and once/if that happens, it morphs into "this content is harder than normal content so we should get better rewards."
Which is fine as long as the rewards are reasonable. We are talking about Vet Overland - not Endgame Trials.
Also what they have said is in line with how the game works. You get a reward that is appropriate to the difficulty of the activity. If you change a dungeon from normal to veteran then you get rewards scaled appropriately. The Entire Game is centered around doing activities for rewards
It is not crazy to say that Vet overland should operate the same way. ZOS has Never implemented an activity that offers no reward, because they understand that very few people would play for the gameplay & challenge alone.
If they are going to invest resources in an activity, or even a project like this, then they want to maximize participation so they provide reasonable incentives. That's how they operate.
So really all anyone has said is; "Hey, this system should work like the rest of the game does"
Edited by Iccotak on May 6, 2021 7:46PM0 -
jaws343✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »Thechuckage wrote: »GW actually has a better system for this. Squash a player down to the zones level. You are still more powerful by simply having more skills and stats on gear but not a walking forest fire.
It has been suggested that players could have the option to be "squashed" down to the zone's level, or that quest bosses could have a optional scroll to increase their difficulty, but the players asking for this don't want that. They want veteran overland with veteran quest bosses that can be killed repeatedly, which they have suggested more than once. This would put quest bosses on farm as a way to get veteran gear without having to step foot into veteran dungeons or trials.
I still am opposed to any improved rewards for doing vet overland content. No way any overland content should give dungeon specific gear. Better gear for vet overland would be a very bad idea. It would alienate much of the player base.
No one has said that overland should give gear found in Dungeons. - That makes no sense.
What people have said is just increase the rarity (blue/purple) chances of something being dropped.
"This would put quest bosses on farm as a way to get veteran gear without having to step foot into veteran dungeons or trials."
That is what I responded to. Vet gear was specifically mentioned.
Nobody asked for that if you read the original quote it was a baseless claim made by SilverBride.
Because I would agree with you that is a terrible and very dumb idea
Full SilverBride quote for context:It has been suggested that players could have the option to be "squashed" down to the zone's level, or that quest bosses could have a optional scroll to increase their difficulty, but the players asking for this don't want that. They want veteran overland with veteran quest bosses that can be killed repeatedly, which they have suggested more than once.
This would put quest bosses on farm as a way to get veteran gear without having to step foot into veteran dungeons or trials.
1. Yeah, I have said in the past that ZOS only seems to put any investment in mechanics and amazing fights for repeatable bosses. So I would like ZOS to give Story Bosses the same quality treatment in fights and if it takes making them repeatable then I can live with that. I want a story boss fight that is on par with ones in Dungeons.
2. NO One, Not a Single Person has said that Story Bosses should drop gear from Dungeons & Trials
Vet Quest Bosses should only offer higher quality versions (Purple quality Not perfected) of Zone Sets OR they should have their own sets that can be farmed.
I think the problem is, this starts as "we want more difficulty" and once/if that happens, it morphs into "this content is harder than normal content so we should get better rewards."
Which is fine as long as the rewards are reasonable. We are talking about Vet Overland - not Endgame Trials.
Also what they have said is in line with how the game works. You get a reward that is appropriate to the difficulty of the activity. If you change a dungeon from normal to veteran then you get rewards scaled appropriately. The Entire Game is centered around doing activities for rewards
It is not crazy to say that Vet overland should operate the same way. ZOS has Never implemented an activity that offers no reward, because they understand that very few people would play for the gameplay & challenge alone.
If they are going to invest resources in an activity, or even a project like this, then they want to maximize participation so they provide reasonable incentives. That's how they operate.
So really all anyone has said is; "Hey, this system should work like the rest of the game does"
Therein lies the problem. If this type of difficulty increase is only to have more challenging overland content, then rewards shouldn't matter. But, in actuality, it is only about having better rewards, not more difficulty.5 -
Ravensilver✭✭✭✭✭Story bosses should not be repeatable. Not in normal, not in vet or any other version of the quest.
The story is the story. Once it's done, it's done. Once you've triumphed, it should be over. Story bosses that can be killed over and over and over again are no longer story bosses. They are world bosses. We have those. Lots of those... in varying difficulties.
It kind of defeats the purpose of the whole story quest thing if, after I've finally conquered the bad guy, he keeps popping up and I can keep killing him for the same - or better - reward on various difficulties. Oh... I just killed story boss xy on normal, now let's resurrect him on vet, kill him again, now let's resurrect him on vet1, kill him again, now let's resurrect him on vet2, kill him again... >.> Ad infinitum. Each time you get better loot (because why else would you want to be doing this?), but is this *truly* a test of your skill? Does this really give you satisfaction?
Let's say you get your vet version, @Iccotak . You spend a few months happily mowing down everything in sight, looting like crazy, collecting CP points, your character becoming more and more god-like with each CP.
Then what? How long until you get bored? How long until you want vet2? Then heroic? Then mythic? Then legendary?
How long until it ends up turning into a rat race like in WoW? More, more, more? How many players in WoW do you think run mythic +34 on a regular basis?4 -
Iccotak✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »Thechuckage wrote: »GW actually has a better system for this. Squash a player down to the zones level. You are still more powerful by simply having more skills and stats on gear but not a walking forest fire.
It has been suggested that players could have the option to be "squashed" down to the zone's level, or that quest bosses could have a optional scroll to increase their difficulty, but the players asking for this don't want that. They want veteran overland with veteran quest bosses that can be killed repeatedly, which they have suggested more than once. This would put quest bosses on farm as a way to get veteran gear without having to step foot into veteran dungeons or trials.
I still am opposed to any improved rewards for doing vet overland content. No way any overland content should give dungeon specific gear. Better gear for vet overland would be a very bad idea. It would alienate much of the player base.
No one has said that overland should give gear found in Dungeons. - That makes no sense.
What people have said is just increase the rarity (blue/purple) chances of something being dropped.
"This would put quest bosses on farm as a way to get veteran gear without having to step foot into veteran dungeons or trials."
That is what I responded to. Vet gear was specifically mentioned.
Nobody asked for that if you read the original quote it was a baseless claim made by SilverBride.
Because I would agree with you that is a terrible and very dumb idea
Full SilverBride quote for context:It has been suggested that players could have the option to be "squashed" down to the zone's level, or that quest bosses could have a optional scroll to increase their difficulty, but the players asking for this don't want that. They want veteran overland with veteran quest bosses that can be killed repeatedly, which they have suggested more than once.
This would put quest bosses on farm as a way to get veteran gear without having to step foot into veteran dungeons or trials.
1. Yeah, I have said in the past that ZOS only seems to put any investment in mechanics and amazing fights for repeatable bosses. So I would like ZOS to give Story Bosses the same quality treatment in fights and if it takes making them repeatable then I can live with that. I want a story boss fight that is on par with ones in Dungeons.
2. NO One, Not a Single Person has said that Story Bosses should drop gear from Dungeons & Trials
Vet Quest Bosses should only offer higher quality versions (Purple quality Not perfected) of Zone Sets OR they should have their own sets that can be farmed.
I think the problem is, this starts as "we want more difficulty" and once/if that happens, it morphs into "this content is harder than normal content so we should get better rewards."
Which is fine as long as the rewards are reasonable. We are talking about Vet Overland - not Endgame Trials.
Also what they have said is in line with how the game works. You get a reward that is appropriate to the difficulty of the activity. If you change a dungeon from normal to veteran then you get rewards scaled appropriately. The Entire Game is centered around doing activities for rewards
It is not crazy to say that Vet overland should operate the same way. ZOS has Never implemented an activity that offers no reward, because they understand that very few people would play for the gameplay & challenge alone.
If they are going to invest resources in an activity, or even a project like this, then they want to maximize participation so they provide reasonable incentives. That's how they operate.
So really all anyone has said is; "Hey, this system should work like the rest of the game does"
Therein lies the problem. If this type of difficulty increase is only to have more challenging overland content, then rewards shouldn't matter. But, in actuality, it is only about having better rewards, not more difficulty.
To reiterate; The Entire Game is centered around doing activities for rewards - that is how ZOS designs the game.
This is not the gotcha moment you think it is. There is no problem. You are making a mountain out of something that is not even a molehill.
The most that people have said is increase the chances of getting blue/purple items along with some achievements. That is not the end of the world.
Because like I said before; While there are those who'll play for no reward - that is not the case for everyone and ZOS likes to make content that has more than one incentive for more than one type of player because they like to maximize participation. It is about having mass appeal.
If ZOS were to implement a Vet Overland setting, it in all likelihood would have an incentive/reward system attached to it - because that is how they design activitiesEdited by Iccotak on May 6, 2021 7:56PM1 -
Sanguinor2✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
Therein lies the problem. If this type of difficulty increase is only to have more challenging overland content, then rewards shouldn't matter. But, in actuality, it is only about having better rewards, not more difficulty.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive. How many players do you think would do quests if Zos stopped giving out rewards for them? Afterall having the quests should be enough right?Politeness is respecting others.
Courage is doing what is fair.
Modesty is speaking of oneself without vanity.
Self control is keeping calm even when anger rises.
Sincerity is expressing oneself without concealing ones thoughts.
Honor is keeping ones word.3 -
Iccotak✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Ravensilver wrote: »Story bosses should not be repeatable. Not in normal, not in vet or any other version of the quest.
Let's say you get your vet version, Iccotak . You spend a few months happily mowing down everything in sight, looting like crazy, collecting CP points, your character becoming more and more god-like with each CP.
Then what? How long until you get bored? How long until you want vet2? Then heroic? Then mythic? Then legendary?
So because if I understand the boss mechanics of one of the harder dungeons - does that make it easy for me? No. I am still engaged because the boss fight is still dangerous. I don't see anyone calling the Harder Veteran Dungeons too easy, even if they do know the mechanics. They will always be hard.
"Shadows of the Hist" is harder than the "White Gold Tower" dungeon but I am still engage for both dungeons because they both still have their dangers and challenges. In fact that content still doesn't bore me, it is still difficult & engaging
(I still want general questing to stimulate me with its gameplay and not rely only on story - this is an mmo centered on action combat, not a point & click adventure)
I'm not asking for Story Bosses to be Trial Endgame - I'm asking that they Not ONLY be for the very new or very casual player. That they actually have mechanics and some level of challenge for bosses that were hyped up for over 20+ hours.
I think the Trial Bosses should still be harder than the Main Story Bosses - but I don't want the main story boss to be a simple easy thing that is designed only for new players.
Edited by Iccotak on May 7, 2021 1:28AM2 -
Agenericname✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭SilverBride wrote: »Thechuckage wrote: »GW actually has a better system for this. Squash a player down to the zones level. You are still more powerful by simply having more skills and stats on gear but not a walking forest fire.
It has been suggested that players could have the option to be "squashed" down to the zone's level, or that quest bosses could have a optional scroll to increase their difficulty, but the players asking for this don't want that. They want veteran overland with veteran quest bosses that can be killed repeatedly, which they have suggested more than once. This would put quest bosses on farm as a way to get veteran gear without having to step foot into veteran dungeons or trials.
The whole point of an RPG game is to grow stronger so you can take on greater challenges. That is the basic structure of the genre and the whole purpose of having "levels" to begin with. So this idea that players should intentionally weaken themselves to make things more challenging is antithetical to everything that makes RPG games fun and addictive.
This thread is requesting an option for more challenging overland. That is accomplished one of two ways. Nerfing the character of buffing the HP and damage of the NPCs which is ofc still a nerf to the character.
Granted, I do not have tons of experience in ESO but from what I have seen of vet dungeons they tend to just add more HP to the bosses and have them do more damage compared to their non-vet counterpart. Is that more challenging? Not really but it is what one should expect if Zos created a vet instance for each zone.
I hope that some of the more advanced dungeons actually adds some mechanics as the difficulty is increased, though I know they will basically still nerf the character by merely adding HP and increase the damage of NPCs.
Thats not at all where their challenge comes from. Less than half of all dungeons are a simple bump in health/damage. Even some base game HMs have conditions that needs to be met, like SP2, BC2, CoH2, and FG2.
Nearly all DLCs dungeon have, or in some cases had, some mechanical difference between normal, vet, and vet HM.
If you look at vSCP HM as an example, its significantly harder than the non-HM version. Your character isnt nerfed, the additional challenge comes from the complexity of the fight. Zaans health is increased, but it's irrelvent except that its represents the amount of time you'll spend between phases, but shes not the threat.
In FL HM, the bosses health at reanimation (where many groups are going to start spending soul gems) is less than 1 million HP difference between HM and non-HM. The boss isn't whats going to kill most people though.
Other cases, like EH1, BC1, FG1, etc there's almost no discernable difference between normal and vet much less vet and vet HM, but they do have the capability to make it more challenging without simply buffing the HP and damage.
As to their point about having more health, yes, they do need some, it just doesnt need to be the only thing added. If something dies before it can get its mechanic off, it may as well not have one.2 -
Psiion✭✭✭✭Greetings,
After removing quite a bit of non-constructive back and forth, we would like to remind everyone that both Baiting and Flaming are against the Forum's Community Rules. Please remember that while it’s all right to disagree or even debate with each other, provoking conflict, baiting, inciting, mocking, etc. is never acceptable in the official The Elder Scrolls Online community.3 -
Iccotak✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭exactly, Story Bosses specifically need improvements to both Health and Mechanics
If they only get health boost then it is much the same fight but now longer --- if they only get mechanics improvements then the fight won't last long enough for them to use those mechanics.
They need both of those things to make the fights work. Health & Armor to be able to take damage, along with damage output and more mechanics that make the fight dangerous.
For the average overland enemies - their key flaw is that they are too slow, they take way too long to do any of their skills and abilities. - That's fine for a new player, or even someone in a very casual mood - but for others that kind of combat becomes really bland and boring by their 500+ hour of questing.
I never feel a sense of danger walking into a cave (and that is with poor gear, 1 skill, & no CP) none of the enemies ever put me in a situation where I have to think, maybe even change up my tactics.
it's one thing if it's an average mob, ok I can accept that - but what about these "Bigger NPCs"? They just use the same abilities and tactics and don't really hit that much harder.
Combat feels samey in all respects, with no fights standing out in regards to uniqueness or mechanics.
There is never an "Oh S****" moment - like when I fought Briarhearts in Skyrim, I knew I was in danger and needed to be careful. Meanwhile ESO Briarhearts aren't at all different from the average reachmen.
ESO overland enemies are inconveniences, at best, when exploring and questing which makes the overall experience dull.
The Dragon Priests in Delves are pathetic - they are nothing compared to the danger a Dragon Priest in TESV presented.
Edited by Iccotak on May 7, 2021 12:11AM2 -
CP5✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Exactly what Iccotak said, when every single mob is effectively the same then every fight against overland mobs is exactly the same. Ages ago ZOS deliberately cited in the patch notes that they nerfed the damage of dps mobs while buffing their health, and buffing the damage of tank mobs while nerfing their health, which in the end makes them basically the same, and since they use their abilities so infrequently (and when they do they are barely noticeable at all) then they may all well be the same. For overland encounters to matter different mobs need to act in defined ways, being worth the time to do things like even acknowledge a healer mob as a healer, not just 'generic ranged add that waste time channeling a skill rather than stacking where I want them to'.1 -
merpins✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I'm wondering why this is such a divisive issue. It's a suggestion for more content that would add to the replay-ability of the game's PVE. By instancing Vet overworld from Normal overworld while at the same time instancing towns to be both vet and normal (instancing sections of overworld is already something that is done), it fixes the issue of the game feeling empty in areas where it shouldn't feel empty. Places like Anchors and Harrowstorms, etc, would be crowded in both Vet and Normal content, since old players would want the challenge and rewards of Vet versions, whereas the Normal versions are already rewarding. Plus it doesn't take away too much, the content is already in the game, it would just be taking the team that does game balance when it comes to mobs and bosses to balance the already existing content, and whatever team that does other game balance like experience and rewards to balance what you would get. It wouldn't divert the resources of the entire company to make something like this a reality, and wouldn't take away from new content but rather promote BOTH new and old content by giving a vet version of both. I see no problem with that.6 -
Daraklus✭✭✭✭
[snip]The amount of capitol they would have to invest to make vet versions of all the overland AND make vet version of all future overland would be MONUMENTAL. And for what? The "maybe" they might get more people? And how much more are they going to get? Lets pretend it raises the population by 20%. Would it have been worth it (Even though it has been shown that harder content alienates a wider audience)?
Would it take time? Sure, just about everything takes time, but to pretend that it would be a massive investment of time and money is [snip] considering that they already have the tech for it, and already have multiple phases/shards for everything. So the work isn't going to be as "Monumental" as you think.
I'd argue that there was more work put into the Companions. Time and coding to get them to work, getting the dialogue recorded, making sure they don't bug out, with there being a bigger chance they're gonna be left unused by a large portion of players.
Now THAT would be a bad business move and end up splitting the playerbase up completely. Making people have to get a whole new game, and could very well leave ESO put on the "Wayside", making it get less attention for content.With that money they could just make "ESO Part 2" or perhaps a "Starfeild Online", so why put a ton of money into something that most players would not want? They can use the same money and make a new game that is still casual friendly and bring in A LOT more people.
After all, why "Waste" resources on ESO, an older and buggy game, when there is a new and fresher game for them to work on that will likely be much more stable? It'll leave people who dedicated themselves to ESO alienated in the wind.And please, please don't say they are magically flush with cash because Microsoft bought them. [snip] The former owners of Zos has that money now, not Zos itself nor Microsoft. It is more reasonable to believe they are looking into cost cutting at the moment. That stuff usually happens after a corporate buy out.
How would you know for sure? Do you have insider knowledge about how Zenimax is being operated, or how Microsoft is going to handle things as a publisher from here on out?
"Cost cutting" might happen? Cost-cutting has been happening for ages, even when games are doing fantastically. The Microsoft buyout wouldn't change a thing.
You do not know any more or any less than other players about the inner workings of Zenimax, neither how much time or money would be spent on "Veteran Overland", nor do you know if it would be a waste of resources or not. [snip]
[Edited to remove Baiting]Edited by ZOS_ConnorG on May 8, 2021 3:55PM2
This discussion has been closed.