Overland Content Feedback Thread

SilverBride

Blackbird_V wrote: »

I wouldn't call 2 shotting quest bosses and overland mobs succeeding. I'd call that absolutely laughable and boring. Not even close to being fun.

I find that completely fun and satisfying. I love that I can actually feel like the hero. And this is where the problem lies. These are our opinions, which do carry some weight to a degree. But do enough players want a veteran overland to justify the huge amount of work it would take to implement?

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_Kevin Do the developers have any feedback they are willing to share at this point?

EDIT: I want to add, as I've stated before, I am all for a debuff for general overland mobs and the option for veteran level story bosses for those who would like that.

Ravensilver

Franchise408 wrote: »

So no, the "overland difficulty" discussion is not irrelevant. And clearly, the mods and devs are willing to listen to it, since the conversation was pinned to the very top of the forum with a mod-created thread.

Well, the Housing forum has a thread pinned to the top - the slots thread.

It's up to 11 pages now.

There has been *no* response from ZOS to all our suggestions, questions, hopes, wishes and other posts that have been written on that thread. Even though housing is a major part of ESO and there are many, many players involved in it.

Nevertheless, ZOS has not seen fit to listen to our feedback on the slots issue. So why should they do so on the vet overland one?

Edit: The difference between the Housing slots thread and this one is that this thread is a very contentious one. Which is how we ended up with 40 pages the last time. On the housing slots one? We're all in agreement there...

Araxyte

Ravensilver wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

If ZoS did an in-game poll where they went through this being OPTIONAL etc. and found a balance between rewards/incentive/whatever then we can get an answer if people want this. Plus, how many threads have been made on this matter? LOTS.

While there have been numerous thread on this topic, they have all been started or perpetuated by more or less the same people. So the player base commenting here and asking for certain things is *definitely* smaller than the player base actually *playing* the game.

Before there is a survey, there has to be a consensus of
- what is *really* wanted
and
- how it should be implemented.

This is actually the first thread I've seen/ commented on related to this topic other than the previous one which they closed to make this one. Some people like my self with an opinion don't come on forums much. Having the kind mod pin the thread to the top has helped.

Maya_Nur

Ravensilver wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

As for the "ton of work": yeah, it will be, but if players want it they'd do it and be worth it.

And that, right there, is the crux of the matter.

Do players really want this?

Oh, we have, what... 20? 30? people arguing here on the forum? Both for and against a vet version of the game.

But that is such a miniscule portion of the actual player base, that it's more or less irrelevant.

The only way we can *truly* know what *all* players want, is to do a survey. A *mandatory* survey that you have to complete before you can sign in. Then ZOS will know what *all* players - PC NA, PC EU, Console - really want.

What we're doing here on the forum is just airing our grievances... those few of us that actually frequent the forums. If you look at the various threads, it's always the same people posting.

There is one other thing that ZOS does that we can't: look at the data.

How many percent of the active accounts have completed which content? How often? How many percent of the active accounts have completed which achievements? How many percent of the active accounts have bought the newest chapters? How many ESO+ accounts out there? How many players in each zone? What dungeons are most popular, and which version of them - normal or vet?

And so on.

All we're doing here is talking. We don't have access to what *really* influences ZOS: the data. As long as we don't have that, 20 people stamping their feet and whining 'we want vet overland' isn't going to convince ZOS to actually allocate time and money to doing something that *none of us here* really knows whether the paying player base wants it or not.

It is always up to an active minority to change things. Those who have decided to remain silent are just excluding themselves from a field of making changes.

Ravensilver

Maya_Nur wrote: »

It is always up to an active minority to change things. Those who have decided to remain silent are just excluding themselves from a field of making changes.[/quote]

Actually... no.

Do you see the Germans here? The Russians? The Japanese? The French? The Italians? The players from Oceania?

There are a lot of players out there that don't feel comfortable posting in an English forum, because their knowledge of the English language is just enough to play the game, not enough to actually argue in it.

It's a common fallacy to believe that the vocal minority speaks for the silent majority. But the silent majority can have many reasons for being silent:

- not speaking the language
- not being aware of the forums
- not having time to participate
- not feeling comfortable with leaving feedback
- preferring to *play* the game, rather than talk about it
- ...

So no. The vocal minority should *not* be dictating the future of the game for the majority.

LalMirchi

Maya_Nur wrote: »

Ravensilver wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

As for the "ton of work": yeah, it will be, but if players want it they'd do it and be worth it.

And that, right there, is the crux of the matter.

Do players really want this?

Oh, we have, what... 20? 30? people arguing here on the forum? Both for and against a vet version of the game.

But that is such a miniscule portion of the actual player base, that it's more or less irrelevant.

The only way we can *truly* know what *all* players want, is to do a survey. A *mandatory* survey that you have to complete before you can sign in. Then ZOS will know what *all* players - PC NA, PC EU, Console - really want.

What we're doing here on the forum is just airing our grievances... those few of us that actually frequent the forums. If you look at the various threads, it's always the same people posting.

There is one other thing that ZOS does that we can't: look at the data.

How many percent of the active accounts have completed which content? How often? How many percent of the active accounts have completed which achievements? How many percent of the active accounts have bought the newest chapters? How many ESO+ accounts out there? How many players in each zone? What dungeons are most popular, and which version of them - normal or vet?

And so on.

All we're doing here is talking. We don't have access to what *really* influences ZOS: the data. As long as we don't have that, 20 people stamping their feet and whining 'we want vet overland' isn't going to convince ZOS to actually allocate time and money to doing something that *none of us here* really knows whether the paying player base wants it or not.

It is always up to an active minority to change things. Those who have decided to remain silent are just excluding themselves from a field of making changes.

Please add me to the minority, I do not support the harder overland but I do think end of quest bosses are rather laughable. Hilarious sometimes in their weakness and inability to withstand a fight. Perhaps some judicious tweaking of the end of quest bosses but please not the wabbajack

SilverBride

Ravensilver wrote: »

So no. The vocal minority should *not* be dictating the future of the game for the majority.

Vocal minority vs silent majority is a very interesting concept. They say the silent majority usually only speaks up if they are unsatisfied with something. But I don't know that we can make the assumption that just because they haven't spoken up it means they are completely happy.

I really don't like the idea of in game polls because I think a lot of players may just click anything to get past it. But if there was a link, in an ingame mail perhaps, to give their opinion maybe this would be a good way to judge what more players think. Maybe an incentive for participating in the poll?

However, I do still think that what is actually going on in game is a good indicator that should also be considered.

Hallothiel

(People make threads about wanting an auction house on a regular basis, but that’s not happening. Just because they’ve pinned this one here does not necessarily mean anything -just keeps it out of other threads)

ZOS is a business, and would only ever even vaguely consider looking at doing this if it was profitable. They would look the data and do a cost/benefit analysis.

Rich’s comments mentioned above make me think that they do look at this, but at this time, it’s not considered commercially viable or profitable - if it was, they would have done it by now!

What I did find interesting was the instanced daily boss during the witches festival. I bet they are looking at the data on that. It was obviously hard for the majority to solo, so they can see just how many bothered to do ‘harder’ stuff and how many did it once or whatever.

Wolfshade

After the discussion in another thread on this topic, I would like to show an example of how this issue was addressed in another mmo-game. Actually there are two new servers were switched online which contain the following. I am aware that there are zone levels, which do not exist in this form in eso. In addition, I am aware that another server should not be an option, I think the idea for an NPC to increase the difficulty for subscription players only, but for a possibility.

Lets have a closer look:

1. you need a subscription

2. there are 10! Difficulty levels in the landscape and mission difficulty. You can change the levels with an NPC at any time. If you play through the selected higher difficulty level to a defined level, you get another title. After the first three levels, normal - hard - dangerous comes the remaining "deadly" - difficulty levels.

3. in addition to the increased difficulty, you can then hit an effect, which appears after a time cycle and deals a huge aoe damage. Players receive an XP boost at higher difficulty levels, from +10% to +20% XP, in addional of killing mobs.

Perhaps one or the other, which would like to look and test at this option for optional difficulty, Shadowfax and Treebeard will be happy to invite you to do so.

SimonThesis

Overland is supposed to be fun for everyone, but who wants to quest when everything gets one shot from a distance. Especially when the NPCs promp up the mob as a big bad that would be difficult to take down. The mobs don't apply any debuffs/status/special effects or require mechanics or even move around, they sit there take damage and die very quick it's boring. Give people who do do end game content a reason to enjoy overland again!

Amottica

Araxyte wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

That breathes life into overland content, which is currently dead.

And not to mention public dungeons are farmed anyway depending on what sets are meta (right now deshaan for sorrow). Dolmens are heavily farmed due to experience... so.....?

Overland is far from dead. Many players still enjoy and spend a lot of time in overland, myself included. And I always run into other players.

I am not referring to current sets that players farm that are available to all... my issue is rewarding players with better drops for an increased difficulty that they asked for and are not required to participate in. The goal has been stated as wanting to feel immersed in the story which is reward enough.

And I am not talking about just green to blue, or blue to purple, or even purple to gold which would be the case for some of the story bosses. Some have also suggested new drops and cosmetics only for the veteran version of overland.

Some players want just the story, other players like my self want story and satisfactory combat encounters/ rewards. There should be option for both

Understandable. However, Zenimax has stated that based on their data of how we play the game that the huge majority of players are interested in enjoying the story without the distraction of a challenging fight. They also stated that with One Tamriel and the easier overland and more challenging world bosses (for those that want more of a challenge) that the game that ESO has never been more successful. In short, they see the current design as an excellent business decision that is working well and they are happy with it. That is what you are up against.

Rudrani

I got excited, and thought this got added to the game...
Its just a thread... =(

Requests:

1) stick stuff endgame people would specifically want into the vet overland. I.e. put a chance to find transmutes and gold mats in chests, and from delve bosses and world bosses.

2) add hardmode banners for world bosses, and double the special loot.

Rudrani

BTW - my basic premise is that the difficulty setting would toggle you to a vet or normal instance of overland (difficulty setting is in options>social>group right now (for whatever reason))

Rudrani

If people wanna enjoy the story without a fight, make a movie.
No serious, keep normal overland the way it is, but allow a vet instance for people that want it.

Iron_Warrior

I see the word "data" has been getting tossed around a lot here but what is this "data"? Is this about the game at launch? So you want to tell me that the sad state of the game those days was only because of the more challenging overland? Kidding right?

So is it about craglorn? A zone that was designed for groups and significatlly harder than other zones? Yeah let's expect strangers to come together and happily spend their time in just ONE zone all day everyday, i'm sure that's going to work out!

Is it about the population of vet vs normal dungeons? Well no wonder more people do them on normal because they give the exact same rewards and the same amount of transmutes, except the last boss that drop the helm, so people finish it once on vet to get the helm and will go back to normal to farm other sets because it's far faster.

But what about the harrowstorms? Look people are not doing them anymore!!! Yeah because people should spend their time 24/7 destroying harrowstorm since this game is Elder Harrowstorms online. Oh man i can't wait for tommorow to destroy some more harrowstorm again for the 300th time!
Again what is this "data"? Don't accept anything that the big companies told you, it may be surprising but a lot of times they lie and don't have anything to back it up. What i call an acceptable "data" is if they make a poll about this ingame. I don't want zenimax to say what players like without asking them.

SilverBride

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

What i call an acceptable "data" is if they make a poll about this ingame. I don't want zenimax to say what players like without asking them.

They know what features are being utilized and by how many.

Iron_Warrior

SilverBride wrote: »

They know what features are being utilized and by how many.

[snip] Don't just tell me about the data zenimax, show me so then the people can have discussions about it.
Again i don't want zenimax to tell people what they do and don't like with their imaginary data

[Edit for Bait.]

Sylvermynx

It appears to me that ZOS has absolutely no interest in exposing proprietary data regarding the game to any of the players. Not a problem for me, as long as the game works and I can play without issue.

Indigogo

Surely the way forward, is to provide two options for instanced end of story bosses in a new release and gauge popularity.
I don't see anyone opposed to that.

Maybe with the public dungeons as well, 2 versions. See just how popular the vet version is, especially for grinding out whatever new collectable is dropping.

Start small, gather the data, go from there.

Maya_Nur

Ravensilver wrote: »

Actually... no.

Do you see the Germans here? The Russians? The Japanese? The French? The Italians? The players from Oceania?

There are a lot of players out there that don't feel comfortable posting in an English forum, because their knowledge of the English language is just enough to play the game, not enough to actually argue in it.

It's a common fallacy to believe that the vocal minority speaks for the silent majority. But the silent majority can have many reasons for being silent:

- not speaking the language
- not being aware of the forums
- not having time to participate
- not feeling comfortable with leaving feedback
- preferring to *play* the game, rather than talk about it
- ...

So no. The vocal minority should *not* be dictating the future of the game for the majority.

I am russian actually

Kwoung

I apologize up front, for not reading this entire thread before posting.

That said, I do not feel the game needs harder overland content. It is fine how it is and ZOS doesn't need to put any time or resources into creating what would inevitably become, a whole slew of new issues, especially since there are so many old unresolved issues hanging out there... that a lot of folks(most?) would rather see resolved.

Also, since I was lazy, are all the folks wanting this harder overland thing cool with the mobs dropping their regular overland garbage gear if it was to happen, or are they expecting better rewards beyond the challenge of harder content as well?

Seminolegirl1992

First of all, I just want to say thank you for hearing us and pinning a thread to this topic. I feel heard. Overland is ridiculously easy, and it takes the fun and immersion out of story encounters when you're supposed to be fighting this supposedly epic enemy. I truly love all aspects of this game. I enjoy dungeons, trials, questing, arenas, housing, rp, and pvp. I play it more than any other game, every day too. The main reason I began playing in 2016 was to quest and enjoy the story. I came across so many amazing people, including my current rp questing partner. Unfortunately he lost interest in the game because overland is so completely lacking. He only gets on the game to play the questlines with me a couple times a month now, but mostly plays WoW or something else. I remember when the game used to be challenging before One Tamriel, but even then the story bosses never were much of an issue. I see a lot of people referencing the creative director's argument that the data says people did not enjoy vet overland because of lack of participation in Cadwell's Silver and Gold. Many of us are arguing that that argument is inherently faulty. Here's why. Most folks just want to play their alliance main storyline, and did not enjoy going through a similar thing but in a different alliance. I think many would have preferred just to create a character in that alliance to do that side's story. Cadwell's did little other than make the game more tedious. Also the argument doesn't really consider that people hated alliance locking. One T was fantastic at bringing everyone together. ZoS continues to produce much more interesting expansion and dlc content that has far exceeded the base game's quests and zones. I think basing people's liking of vet overland on lack of Cadwell or Craglorn engagement is sorta correlation vs causation. I don't think vet content was the main cause of the dislike regarding Cadwell Silver and Gold. The quests weren't as interesting, overland was a chore with enemies every two feet (with more health, same awful lack of mechanics, so more tedious basically), and people were alliance locked. There's many reasons it wasn't popular. Correlated? Definitely. Causation? I'd argue no. A vet toggle or instance, especially regarding important enemies, would vastly improve many players' experience. Rewards are less important to me, but would make sense given other aspects of the game that have normal/vet instances. I see a lot of people who take issue with that, but fortunately overland gear is not even close to being *that great* compared to trial or dungeon gear. I think it would also encourage a lot of those players to get their feet wet and try something slightly more difficult than what they're used to. There's a significant difference in casual players versus "elites" and it shows. The gap is far too wide, and nerfing won't fix that. So many of the people I run trials with don't even bother with overland quests anymore. There are many who still do because they love the game, but they ache for it to be more immersive. Most of us are simply nerfing ourselves by taking off gear, skills, and cp, but that's just such a strange thing to have to do to find a story engaging. Any other rpg on the market makes bosses worth fighting. I felt a huge sense of accomplishment when I recently figured out a quest in Pillars of Eternity II Deadfire. I kept failing over and over, but I kept at it until I beat it, and I was so proud. Heck, there was a boss I had to leave because I clearly wasn't ready for it. So now I'm reevaluating my strategy and I'm getting ready to have another go at it. I am super excited to see if I can beat it this time. That feeling does not exist in eso at all for me, but gods do I wish it did (in overland, that is). That feeling *should* be there. I felt it when I killed Molag Bal before One T. I died a couple times before I got it. To be fair I didn't know what I was doing at the time, but that sense of accomplishment was AMAZING. Same when I beat vMA for the first time. I was so freakin happy. That's the whole point of a game like this. To overcome challenges and become a hero. What challenge are we currently overcoming if the big bad guy at the end of the questline can die from pancakes being thrown at it? More specifically, if I'm taking off all gear, putting on weak skills, removing cp, and forcing myself to elongate the fight so he can finish his speech? Challenge is fun. And telling us vet players to just...do trials, arenas, and dungeons all day is just super disingenuous. That's not *all* we do. Heck, many of my trial friends simply quit because that's all they did and they burnt themselves out. We want to enjoy the story and have it feel like it means something. Of course, making this optional is paramount. I don't want to take someone else's fun away. I think ZoS would be pleasantly surprised at the number of long term players that may regain interest if the quest content was more engaging, and by that, I don't mean making the boss temporarily invulnerable but making it no more interesting than just that. Thanks for taking our points into consideration

M0ntie

Dark_Lord_Kuro above makes a key point: "The overland is perfectly fine the way it is
.... I would most likely quit if the difficulty is raised as my fun in games is to is to listen to the story and lore..."

If I'm starting out with a character, or questing and following the story (which is what overland content is) the content is exactly the right difficulty. I don't want to fight a huge battle every 5 steps of a quest. Overland content is what you have to get through when starting out so it needs to be "easy".

Currently in overland content people can solo public dungeons and world bosses if they want something harder. Or if you want much harder solo content there is Maelstom and Vateshran, or soloing dungeons.

Generally I think ESO does a great job of providing a wide and varying range of activities already. I think development resources could be much much better spent, but if you must change the difficulty of overland content, make it optional.

Faulgor

Fascinating that this issue has ballooned so much that it warrants an official thread. I used to joke that there is always a thread about this on the front page, so I shouldn't be surprised.

I doubt it's always the same voices raising this issue, tho. I remember being among the first who brought this up years ago, but I haven't participated in these repetitive discussions in quite some time. Since then I have heard the same complaints from all my friends who have quit, all of which by no means min-maxers or as occupied with creating builds as I am.
That the majority of the content is unengaging at endgame is a big issue for them.

In my opinion, there are two main issues with the current situation around overland content and difficulty:

For one, the vast majority of the game's content (and newly released content) is easy as pie solo overland PvE, but once you reach "endgame" (or rather max out your character), the content focus completely flips into challenging group PvE. That means on the one side people are just not prepared for the steep rise in difficulty of group content, and on the other side solo players don't have anything left to do to keep them engaged - outside of vet Maelstrom and Vateshran perhaps.

Second, which flows from the first point, is that in solo content the whole game design falls apart once you max out your character. Because the vast majority of content is so easy, there is no incentive to make use of the games systems - acquiring new sets, upgrading, crafting, potions, poisons, companions, champion points, combat mechanics, etc. Why should I invest any time in that fluff when I can walk through 95% of the new content each year like it's nothing? That's just not good game design.
It's like playing Monopoly without dice and money - fine, you might enjoy putting all your adorable houses in a row. But it's not much of a game anymore.

I might add a 3rd point, that is more ephemeral and might not be important to as many people, but I think it's worth pointing out. The magic of an Elder Scrolls game lies in its exploration of the world, and that goes hand in hand with the dangers in that world. Being able to venture into a new area because your character is finally strong enough is a vital component of the TES experience, as is preparing for the journey. ESO has become so trivial that the journey is not any more interesting than a trip down the hall to the bathroom.

RPGs rely a lot on progression. Overcoming a new obstacle, either through adjusting your playstyle or improving our character's capabilities, that's at the core of the genre, and why I and a lot of other people enjoy it. Understandably, this cannot be accomplished indefinitely. When I play through a solo RPG in 30-40 hours, I can consider that a good time and be done with it.
Multiplayer RPGs have the disadvantage that the game just never really ends - but also the advantage that they can always add new content. Most MMOs regularly increase the level and gear caps for this reason, in addition to a higher difficulty for new content. ESO is unique in that regard, which comes with its pros and cons. I love that One Tamriel lets me explore wherever I want, with whomever I want. I love that I don't have to chase new upgrade materials every update. But it also limits my engagement with all that new content, because I'm just clicking on quest markers at this point.

Optional higher difficulty settings would address a lot of these issues, bringing more coherence to the game experience. Casual players can have a more gradual progression into the more difficult endgame content, solo players can find challenges after maxing out their characters, staying engaged for longer than the 3 days it takes to play through new quests, and everyone would profit from a higher importance of the game's systems.
And yes, of course this would be optional. That the content difficulty and your or your character's abilities have to be in sync is the whole point.

Despite claims that this would be a waste of development time, it would also be the most lightweight addition possible. All the necessary systems already exist to make this happen, because everyone scales anyway. Granting optional debuffs like Battle Spirit is absolutely trivial compared to the development of antiquities or companions. It would reinvigorate old content without the need to develop new one. It's a downright steal for the development team.

Kwoung

Faulgor wrote: »

Despite claims that this would be a waste of development time, it would also be the most lightweight addition possible. All the necessary systems already exist to make this happen, because everyone scales anyway. Granting optional debuffs like Battle Spirit is absolutely trivial compared to the development of antiquities or companions. It would reinvigorate old content without the need to develop new one. It's a downright steal for the development team.

If as you say, it would be as simple as say drinking a potion to simply gimp yourself and make what currently exists more challenging for you, with no other changes to the game. Sure then, why not, drink up... I would support that!

Amottica

Rudrani wrote: »

If people wanna enjoy the story without a fight, make a movie.
No serious, keep normal overland the way it is, but allow a vet instance for people that want it.

And RIch said it is not that simple. Seriously. Those were his words answering the question about an optional higher difficulty.

Even beyond that Rich indicated that the game became immensely more successful with the current design.

I have no issue if Zenimax chooses to make such an optional setting. However, I respect their business decision as they say their data clearly suggest the huge majority of players are interested in enjoying the stories of the quests without being hindered with combat. I enjoy a challenge in combat but have never had an issue with easy story fights or felt something was missing.

Toxic_Hemlock

Kwoung wrote: »

Faulgor wrote: »

Despite claims that this would be a waste of development time, it would also be the most lightweight addition possible. All the necessary systems already exist to make this happen, because everyone scales anyway. Granting optional debuffs like Battle Spirit is absolutely trivial compared to the development of antiquities or companions. It would reinvigorate old content without the need to develop new one. It's a downright steal for the development team.

If as you say, it would be as simple as say drinking a potion to simply gimp yourself and make what currently exists more challenging for you, with no other changes to the game. Sure then, why not, drink up... I would support that!

I agree, if a player wants to shoot themselves in the foot before going for a walk, who am I to stop them. So long as I can continue to enjoy the scenery and do quests at my leisure I'm good. Having the fear of going afk for a drink and come back dead is not what I call fun.

Optional is fine by me, so long as it is not forced upon me then I will keep playing. If not them I will leave and take my membership with me.

Auberon1983

I know I'm echoing a few people in here, but my personal two cents:

Actual Overland content, like regular trash mobs in Glenumbra (or wherever)? Please no. I don't want to have to worry about mechanics with Red Rook Archer #267,854.

Story bosses (solo)? Oh yes, I would love an optional Hard Mode, like a Hard Mode scroll. Mannimarco shouldn't go down to my Healer in less than 60 seconds. No extra loot, no bonus goodies, just a way more challenging story fight would be wonderful (again, entirely optional)

Faulgor

Amottica wrote: »

Rudrani wrote: »

If people wanna enjoy the story without a fight, make a movie.
No serious, keep normal overland the way it is, but allow a vet instance for people that want it.

And RIch said it is not that simple. Seriously. Those were his words answering the question about an optional higher difficulty.

Even beyond that Rich indicated that the game became immensely more successful with the current design.

Source? I haven't kept up with the discussion in a few months, and am not used to devs talking to us in the first place lol

Muttsmutt

veteran mode.