Overland Content Feedback Thread

Aardappelboom

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Every zone is marketed with new players being able to play in mind. All zone stories are intended to be able to be played by anyone buying whatever the current chapter is for the first time. This is not a game with leveled zones.

It would have more value if it were marketed towards a broader audience by allowing optional custom difficulty settings. It's not abour rewards or anything like that, people just like different things.

Story content, and let's admit, the content is often pretty good, shouldn't be only catered towards a specific playerbase, it devalues the DLC for the rest of your playerbase. Single player games have an appeal because they can be enjoyed the way you want to enjoy gameplay. Son' t forger these stories are the main selling point in most cases.

In reality the overland zone story is very much a single player or solo experience, so why not treat it like one? I have to admit that I don't get the same feeling as when I did basegame for the first time, I wish I did though.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Every zone is marketed with new players being able to play in mind. All zone stories are intended to be able to be played by anyone buying whatever the current chapter is for the first time. This is not a game with leveled zones.

It isn't, and being free from having a finite number of zones to explore based on your level, which is one of the reasons why I liked silver and gold zones since the 5 level range covered more areas, but having no choice or option to account for more players will remain an issue unless all players who would care for such a thing give up or leave. Neither of those are good for the game long term, and adding an option for some players shouldn't be manifesting this 'us vs them winner take all' mentality, but without ZOS input fears are allowed to go unaddressed creating the situation we see now.

I am in favor of a harder Overland option and have been for months. It's got nothing to do with some us vs them mentality. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with enjoying current Overland, and that having this game having AOEs is not some reason to ultra buff trash mobs. I don't want to force harder Overland on everyone. Things are not so dire that I think that needs to happen.

The harder Overland I want to see would not make literally every mob difficult, because that is tedious. I don't want to fight a mudcrabs for 5 minutes. Maybe that's the Overland you envision when you want a harder one, but it's not the one I envision. And if you take me having a different attitude toward buffing trash as us vs them, that's fine. That's your pregorative. You want trash to be hard and I don't, those are opposite views. But that is entirely on you. I don't care if you have a different vision, I am simply here to advocate for my own. I don't see disagreement as inherently a combat. We can both disagree on finer points and want the same goal.

I want them to give us a harder Overland where mobs scale in strength. Trash like bandits, cultists, mudcrabs, and wolves would remain easy. Elite mobs would be on tier with low level bosses in normal base game dungeons. Low tier bosses would be on par with vet base game dungeons but designed for single player encounters. So medium difficulty. And the big bads of the story would be vet vatheshran/vma difficulty.

Edit

Since I want the difficulty be progressive, especially in light of the way so many boss encounters are designed to flood you with trash to distract you from taking down elites, I ofc do not support trash being buffed so it can't be taken down with aoe. I don't see trash dying to aoe as a problem at all.

spartaxoxo

Aardappelboom wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Every zone is marketed with new players being able to play in mind. All zone stories are intended to be able to be played by anyone buying whatever the current chapter is for the first time. This is not a game with leveled zones.

It would have more value if it were marketed towards a broader audience by allowing optional custom difficulty settings. It's not abour rewards or anything like that, people just like different things.

Story content, and let's admit, the content is often pretty good, shouldn't be only catered towards a specific playerbase, it devalues the DLC for the rest of your playerbase. Single player games have an appeal because they can be enjoyed the way you want to enjoy gameplay. Son' t forger these stories are the main selling point in most cases.

In reality the overland zone story is very much a single player or solo experience, so why not treat it like one? I have to admit that I don't get the same feeling as when I did basegame for the first time, I wish I did though.

As I have stated many times, I support a harder Overland. I don't know why simple facts about the game are treated as not wanting it. Can't I want a harder Overland and acknowledge this game's design at the same time? This game is designed so that people can jump right into the newest dlc they bought right away and that's a good thing. Having it done by leveled zones nearly killed this game. So a harder Overland shouldn't be designed as leveled zones. New players being able to go anywhere is a GOOD thing.

Harder Overland should be implemented in a way that doesn't interfere with that core design structure imo.

That means optional difficulty settings enabled somehow rather than different zones having different levels.

It is good that zones don't have different levels imo. It is extremely important to keep that the base line experience because that is essential to providing the elder scrolls experience. It doesn't mean we can't have harder options, it just means they shouldn't come at the expense of the base experience.

vsrs_au

spartaxoxo wrote: »

... And the big bads of the story would be vet vatheshran/vma difficulty...

You lost me at the "big bads" comment - if the "big bads" in the main quest lines were at that difficulty level, then most players would never be able to complete any of the main quest lines. Or was your "big bads" reference not related to the main quest lines?

CP5

vsrs_au wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

... And the big bads of the story would be vet vatheshran/vma difficulty...

You lost me at the "big bads" comment - if the "big bads" in the main quest lines were at that difficulty level, then most players would never be able to complete any of the main quest lines. Or was your "big bads" reference not related to the main quest lines?

They also said

"Harder Overland should be implemented in a way that doesn't interfere with that core design structure imo.

That means optional difficulty settings enabled somehow rather than different zones having different levels."

The intent being it would be optional, not forced on players, something people would choose to engage with just like every other piece of veteran content in the game. The intent isn't to gate people from content, but to enable more types of people to enjoy it through choice.

-

And since there seems to be some questions about an actual view on difficulty, first I don't think anyone has asked for mud crabs to be more challenging, ever, in any of the threads, be it this one or those locked months ago. Basic animals shouldn't be superimposing, but in all the examples I tend to bring, it is the vast majority of enemies we face that I cite as examples. What threat is a cult when an individual cultist can't do anything substantial?

Take for example, Elden Hollow, on vet, the first group of enemies you face there, the six or so high elves? Their stats are high enough that they can live long enough to actually act against the player. In normal overland group sizes are 3 so even that group is larger than you would normally find, but I feel those stats act as a good base to measure standard threat mobs after. Then you would do things like give tank mobs some armor and remove their time-wasting skills to make them impactful, give the same treatment to damage dealing mobs, so their damage output actually needs attention and purpose enough to react to, not a 10s downtime while they charge up a single attack that does almost nothing if it lands. Things of that nature add texture to exploring the land since you need to be more engaged with your surroundings, paying attention to where you are and who you're fighting, as well as adding weight to a majority of the quest that focus on helping the people of tamriel against such threats. If these standard threat level mobs aren't addressed, the world will remain dull and the quest that lack major antagonistic enemies will remain as hollow as many find them now.

Then like spartaxoxo said, when a year of content is leading up to a fight against someone whose supposed to be a major threat, why then has this fight been boiled down to 'kill trash and hit x' for the past few years? Orsinium had a great final boss, against two enemies who each had a different set of skills and, if one died before the other (which likely happened almost every time) then the other would 'enrage' and gain a few new skills to keep the fight fresh and allow the rest of the fight to be as engaging. But now the end of a year-long story feels like a chore for many players, why couldn't the npc's have dealt with this? That kind of encounter just undermines all the content that preceded it, which as it stands is prone to leave players feeling similarly 'whelmed' and just makes the whole experience feel like a waste of time.

vsrs_au

CP5 wrote: »

vsrs_au wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

... And the big bads of the story would be vet vatheshran/vma difficulty...

You lost me at the "big bads" comment - if the "big bads" in the main quest lines were at that difficulty level, then most players would never be able to complete any of the main quest lines. Or was your "big bads" reference not related to the main quest lines?

They also said

"Harder Overland should be implemented in a way that doesn't interfere with that core design structure imo.

That means optional difficulty settings enabled somehow rather than different zones having different levels."

That's not the only way to implement it, as I mentioned earlier in this thread. ZOS could simply add harder mobs to unused areas of the zones, and those who choose not to engage these mobs can go around them. That could be implemented without changing any game mechanics. I believe this is actually how Craglorn works at the moment - we can travel through Craglorn with little or no battles if we pick the right routes, or we can engage the various mobs, so it's a choice.

Sylvermynx

vsrs_au wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

vsrs_au wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

... And the big bads of the story would be vet vatheshran/vma difficulty...

You lost me at the "big bads" comment - if the "big bads" in the main quest lines were at that difficulty level, then most players would never be able to complete any of the main quest lines. Or was your "big bads" reference not related to the main quest lines?

They also said

"Harder Overland should be implemented in a way that doesn't interfere with that core design structure imo.

That means optional difficulty settings enabled somehow rather than different zones having different levels."

That's not the only way to implement it, as I mentioned earlier in this thread. ZOS could simply add harder mobs to unused areas of the zones, and those who choose not to engage these mobs can go around them. That could be implemented without changing any game mechanics. I believe this is actually how Craglorn works at the moment - we can travel through Craglorn with little or no battles if we pick the right routes, or we can engage the various mobs, so it's a choice.

Here's the problem I see with that: it's a "funnel" setup at that point - anyone who is serious about harder overland will wind up funneled into those areas over and over; and there might be so many people there that mobs still die too fast. I realize I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, but really, if Rich was just popping off with his "not making changes" statement (and it's certainly possible) then people looking for harder more engaging overland bosses (at the least) need to keep coming up with ideas about how to implement something, anything, that can optionally make them happier with the game. Because if nothing happens to improve their attitudes and situations with regard to overland enjoyment, it's entirely possible they'll continue to leave en masse - which isn't good at all for them or any of the rest of us.

At this point, I'd rather see harder overland overall, figure out how to deal with it myself (or not, depending) and not have so many people who love the game teetering on the edge of leaving and never coming back....

CP5

But they do implement variable difficulty through direct choice that allows the entirety of a particular piece of content to appeal to more players. Doing a dungeon isn't "the mobs are for easy mod and the bosses are for vet," so having particular places or zones be particular levels would do something like "this zone is for easy and that zone is for hard" or "camps of enemies around towns related to quest are easy and world bosses are hard."

That choice and implementation fails to acknowledge that some players want to enjoy the entirety of the content. I can already go to solo world bosses, they're actually pretty enjoyable content for me, but I want to enjoy the questing and the feel of exploration, not have it just be said 'that content isn't for you despite the fact that we have ways of providing choice.' It is the same reason why suggesting people who take issue with current overland just 'go back to their content' doesn't address the issue.

Being able to enjoy the world fully doesn't come by making some parts for easy mode and some for hard, because all you do then is actually take content away from those who enjoy things as is while still denying parts of it for people who're looking for more of a challenge.

vsrs_au

Sylvermynx wrote: »

vsrs_au wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

vsrs_au wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

... And the big bads of the story would be vet vatheshran/vma difficulty...

You lost me at the "big bads" comment - if the "big bads" in the main quest lines were at that difficulty level, then most players would never be able to complete any of the main quest lines. Or was your "big bads" reference not related to the main quest lines?

They also said

"Harder Overland should be implemented in a way that doesn't interfere with that core design structure imo.

That means optional difficulty settings enabled somehow rather than different zones having different levels."

That's not the only way to implement it, as I mentioned earlier in this thread. ZOS could simply add harder mobs to unused areas of the zones, and those who choose not to engage these mobs can go around them. That could be implemented without changing any game mechanics. I believe this is actually how Craglorn works at the moment - we can travel through Craglorn with little or no battles if we pick the right routes, or we can engage the various mobs, so it's a choice.

Here's the problem I see with that: it's a "funnel" setup at that point - anyone who is serious about harder overland will wind up funneled into those areas over and over; and there might be so many people there that mobs still die too fast. I realize I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, but really, if Rich was just popping off with his "not making changes" statement (and it's certainly possible) then people looking for harder more engaging overland bosses (at the least) need to keep coming up with ideas about how to implement something, anything, that can optionally make them happier with the game. Because if nothing happens to improve their attitudes and situations with regard to overland enjoyment, it's entirely possible they'll continue to leave en masse - which isn't good at all for them or any of the rest of us.

At this point, I'd rather see harder overland overall, figure out how to deal with it myself (or not, depending) and not have so many people who love the game teetering on the edge of leaving and never coming back....

I've spent several weeks playing in Craglorn, and I haven't noticed the funnel effect you mention, and as I already mentioned, this solution requires no changes to the game design.

Also, Craglorn appears to be quite a busy zone during certain hours, so it's fairly popular as far as I can see. The disadvantage of the instanced approach others are proposing (i.e. difficulty slider) is that it will split up the player base, making the numbers in each instance lower, and that in my opinion would slowly kill the game.

Sylvermynx

Nobody does anything much in Crag except run their harvesting routes incessantly, and stand around in Belkarth hollering in zone for trials runs....

CP5 wrote: »

But they do implement variable difficulty through direct choice that allows the entirety of a particular piece of content to appeal to more players. Doing a dungeon isn't "the mobs are for easy mod and the bosses are for vet," so having particular places or zones be particular levels would do something like "this zone is for easy and that zone is for hard" or "camps of enemies around towns related to quest are easy and world bosses are hard."

That choice and implementation fails to acknowledge that some players want to enjoy the entirety of the content. I can already go to solo world bosses, they're actually pretty enjoyable content for me, but I want to enjoy the questing and the feel of exploration, not have it just be said 'that content isn't for you despite the fact that we have ways of providing choice.' It is the same reason why suggesting people who take issue with current overland just 'go back to their content' doesn't address the issue.

Being able to enjoy the world fully doesn't come by making some parts for easy mode and some for hard, because all you do then is actually take content away from those who enjoy things as is while still denying parts of it for people who're looking for more of a challenge.

I understand that. I hope that you all get something, anything, to expand your abilities to enjoy the game the way I do.

vsrs_au

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Nobody does anything much in Crag except run their harvesting routes incessantly, and stand around in Belkarth hollering in zone for trials runs....

That's not what I've seen. There is plenty of overland activity, especially inside higher mob areas such as Spellscar.

Anyway, it's clear we have fairly different views, and I respect yours but don't agree with it. We'll just have to disagree.

CP5

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Nobody does anything much in Crag except run their harvesting routes incessantly, and stand around in Belkarth hollering in zone for trials runs....

CP5 wrote: »

But they do implement variable difficulty through direct choice that allows the entirety of a particular piece of content to appeal to more players. Doing a dungeon isn't "the mobs are for easy mod and the bosses are for vet," so having particular places or zones be particular levels would do something like "this zone is for easy and that zone is for hard" or "camps of enemies around towns related to quest are easy and world bosses are hard."

That choice and implementation fails to acknowledge that some players want to enjoy the entirety of the content. I can already go to solo world bosses, they're actually pretty enjoyable content for me, but I want to enjoy the questing and the feel of exploration, not have it just be said 'that content isn't for you despite the fact that we have ways of providing choice.' It is the same reason why suggesting people who take issue with current overland just 'go back to their content' doesn't address the issue.

Being able to enjoy the world fully doesn't come by making some parts for easy mode and some for hard, because all you do then is actually take content away from those who enjoy things as is while still denying parts of it for people who're looking for more of a challenge.

I understand that. I hope that you all get something, anything, to expand your abilities to enjoy the game the way I do.

Thank you, and with what tools ZOS already has they should have many ways of doing that without compromising what parts of the game people already enjoy. Thankfully though, as most recently repeated in that interview, they know full well how many people like things as they are and aren't going to force any changes onto others, I would hope.

Vylaera

CP5 wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Nobody does anything much in Crag except run their harvesting routes incessantly, and stand around in Belkarth hollering in zone for trials runs....

CP5 wrote: »

But they do implement variable difficulty through direct choice that allows the entirety of a particular piece of content to appeal to more players. Doing a dungeon isn't "the mobs are for easy mod and the bosses are for vet," so having particular places or zones be particular levels would do something like "this zone is for easy and that zone is for hard" or "camps of enemies around towns related to quest are easy and world bosses are hard."

That choice and implementation fails to acknowledge that some players want to enjoy the entirety of the content. I can already go to solo world bosses, they're actually pretty enjoyable content for me, but I want to enjoy the questing and the feel of exploration, not have it just be said 'that content isn't for you despite the fact that we have ways of providing choice.' It is the same reason why suggesting people who take issue with current overland just 'go back to their content' doesn't address the issue.

Being able to enjoy the world fully doesn't come by making some parts for easy mode and some for hard, because all you do then is actually take content away from those who enjoy things as is while still denying parts of it for people who're looking for more of a challenge.

I understand that. I hope that you all get something, anything, to expand your abilities to enjoy the game the way I do.

Thank you, and with what tools ZOS already has they should have many ways of doing that without compromising what parts of the game people already enjoy. Thankfully though, as most recently repeated in that interview, they know full well how many people like things as they are and aren't going to force any changes onto others, I would hope.

Adding a difficulty option doesn't force anything on anyone. If you want to continue playing on novice difficulty then you can, for people who enjoy challenge then they can choose a harder difficulty.

SilverBride

Sylvermynx wrote: »

At this point, I'd rather see harder overland overall, figure out how to deal with it myself (or not, depending) and not have so many people who love the game teetering on the edge of leaving and never coming back....

We would lose a LOT more players if they did that than if they don't. The game almost went under after launch because people were leaving in droves, in a large part due to the difficulty of Silver and Gold and the forced grouping of Craglorn. One Tamriel saved this game.

Rich gave his answer that there are no major changes planned for overland, but he didn't say there would be nothing. Challenge banners and debuff foods are much less major in my opinion, although I don't know for sure. Hopefully they will consider those options.

WiseSky

SilverBride wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

At this point, I'd rather see harder overland overall, figure out how to deal with it myself (or not, depending) and not have so many people who love the game teetering on the edge of leaving and never coming back....

We would lose a LOT more players if they did that than if they don't. The game almost went under after launch because people were leaving in droves, in a large part due to the difficulty of Silver and Gold and the forced grouping of Craglorn. One Tamriel saved this game.

Rich gave his answer that there are no major changes planned for overland, but he didn't say there would be nothing. Challenge banners and debuff foods are much less major in my opinion, although I don't know for sure. Hopefully they will consider those options.

Don't forget my cool set the Daedric Curse where each set Item alters your Healing, Attack, magic, armor,....

SilverBride

WiseSky wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

At this point, I'd rather see harder overland overall, figure out how to deal with it myself (or not, depending) and not have so many people who love the game teetering on the edge of leaving and never coming back....

We would lose a LOT more players if they did that than if they don't. The game almost went under after launch because people were leaving in droves, in a large part due to the difficulty of Silver and Gold and the forced grouping of Craglorn. One Tamriel saved this game.

Rich gave his answer that there are no major changes planned for overland, but he didn't say there would be nothing. Challenge banners and debuff foods are much less major in my opinion, although I don't know for sure. Hopefully they will consider those options.

Don't forget my cool set the Daedric Curse where each set Item alters your Healing, Attack, magic, armor,....

That, too!

TheS1X

Solo players have no challenging content, overland should offer something but it does not.
Players get bored very easily because game feels easy and not very rewarding, I mean, even public dungeons are too easy.
If developers don't want to make mobs stronger then there is always option to add more dangerous traps that can one shot players, at least it will spark some emotions while playing.

SilverBride

TheS1X wrote: »

Solo players have no challenging content, overland should offer something but it does not.
Players get bored very easily because game feels easy and not very rewarding, I mean, even public dungeons are too easy.
If developers don't want to make mobs stronger then there is always option to add more dangerous traps that can one shot players, at least it will spark some emotions while playing.

Emotions such as frustration and irritation. That is how I would feel if I was one shot by a trap while questing.

FlopsyPrince

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

Last night I witnessed the most powerful reason for getting harder overland content.

I was playing ESO snuggling next to my wife on the couch and got up briefly to get something, when a monster respawned next to me. My wife who was sitting next to my controller asked if she could try to kill the monster, after I told her yes, she said "I actually figured this out. All you need to do is hit buttons and you kill them." I then witnessed her kill an overland monster with her back facing to the monster, looking at a rock the whole time (because trying to move and press buttons is a challenge for her) all while barely losing any health.

At this point, I don't care what you do, please give us more difficult overland content.

Edit:
And just so you know, she knows so little about video games that after laughing about what I previously wrote, she said "I didn't realize I was looking at a rock the whole time."

Please ...
please ...
give us more difficult overland content.

That shows that overland trash mobs are easy for most players, which no one is disputing. This is not a bad thing or anything that needs to be changed.

It's every zone, every story, every place in the world you go. How long would it take a new player to no longer be new? To outgrow that level of content or to be conditioned into believing that was all they're capable of doing and seeing anything beyond it as too demanding and unfair? Why is it that this content should only be designed around this base, when all other places in the game where gameplay is relevant has options? That comment shows just how important it is to provide a choice, because when the only way to enjoy the content is skewed so heavily to one side you alienate a large number of players, regardless of if you prefer it that way or not.

Alienate a large number of players?

What evidence do you have of that?

FlopsyPrince

Aardappelboom wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Every zone is marketed with new players being able to play in mind. All zone stories are intended to be able to be played by anyone buying whatever the current chapter is for the first time. This is not a game with leveled zones.

It would have more value if it were marketed towards a broader audience by allowing optional custom difficulty settings. It's not abour rewards or anything like that, people just like different things.

Story content, and let's admit, the content is often pretty good, shouldn't be only catered towards a specific playerbase, it devalues the DLC for the rest of your playerbase. Single player games have an appeal because they can be enjoyed the way you want to enjoy gameplay. Son' t forger these stories are the main selling point in most cases.

In reality the overland zone story is very much a single player or solo experience, so why not treat it like one? I have to admit that I don't get the same feeling as when I did basegame for the first time, I wish I did though.

You will NEVER get the same experience you had initially. It will never be "brand new" again.

Elf_Boy

I like how City of Heroes did it.
Multiple difficulty sliders, adding more mobs and adding tougher more powerful mobs.
Greater risk means greater reward. Just a small bonus to drop rates.

With COH being largely instanced I dont know how this would affect overland content.

With the single server environment, set up like a jigsaw puzzle moving around the world, could it be that there are Normal and Advanced versions of the zones - like how Silver/Gold are or used to be parallel zones?

Which is to say I can see how it might be done, but would the work be feasible, I have no idea.

I would also like to see an option for low/med/high population for zones too.

Aardappelboom

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

Aardappelboom wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Every zone is marketed with new players being able to play in mind. All zone stories are intended to be able to be played by anyone buying whatever the current chapter is for the first time. This is not a game with leveled zones.

It would have more value if it were marketed towards a broader audience by allowing optional custom difficulty settings. It's not abour rewards or anything like that, people just like different things.

Story content, and let's admit, the content is often pretty good, shouldn't be only catered towards a specific playerbase, it devalues the DLC for the rest of your playerbase. Single player games have an appeal because they can be enjoyed the way you want to enjoy gameplay. Son' t forger these stories are the main selling point in most cases.

In reality the overland zone story is very much a single player or solo experience, so why not treat it like one? I have to admit that I don't get the same feeling as when I did basegame for the first time, I wish I did though.

You will NEVER get the same experience you had initially. It will never be "brand new" again.

Don't worry, I still enjoy every story they drop, just like it's "brand new" that's not the problem here. It's clear there are players that like easier content and there are players like me that like a bit more challenge.

Add a debuff in the same way battle spirit is applied for PVP, hide it under a difficulty slider and the value of each content drop increases for people like me, it's a win win honestly...

Difficulty sliders in games like Baldur's gate were essentially debuffs (take 20% more damage, your weapon damage is reduced by x or y)

Even in overland group content this would work, it's not like grouping up for questing is to overcome difficulty anyway, who cares if your pall is playing without the buff and you are, doesn't matter and it's the same as the battle level system.

I honestly think people overcomplicate this, either out of fear "their" gaming experience will become unplayable or by thinking this is more than just an option for people that want it. It's not about rewards or anything like that, it's about people enjoying different things, the core is enjoying the story that was layed out by ZOS, there's enough ways to get gear and gold and other trinkets already.

This topic has over 3000 passionate replies, all of people that love the game and enjoy the content, why anyone would be against making the game attractive to an even larger playerbase is something I don't understand.

To be clear, I'm not saying you have said or insinuated you don't want this, it's more of a summary of why I think this should definitely be added to the game and kind of in response to what @ZOS_RichLambert had to say about it. 🙂

CP5

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

Last night I witnessed the most powerful reason for getting harder overland content.

I was playing ESO snuggling next to my wife on the couch and got up briefly to get something, when a monster respawned next to me. My wife who was sitting next to my controller asked if she could try to kill the monster, after I told her yes, she said "I actually figured this out. All you need to do is hit buttons and you kill them." I then witnessed her kill an overland monster with her back facing to the monster, looking at a rock the whole time (because trying to move and press buttons is a challenge for her) all while barely losing any health.

At this point, I don't care what you do, please give us more difficult overland content.

Edit:
And just so you know, she knows so little about video games that after laughing about what I previously wrote, she said "I didn't realize I was looking at a rock the whole time."

Please ...
please ...
give us more difficult overland content.

That shows that overland trash mobs are easy for most players, which no one is disputing. This is not a bad thing or anything that needs to be changed.

It's every zone, every story, every place in the world you go. How long would it take a new player to no longer be new? To outgrow that level of content or to be conditioned into believing that was all they're capable of doing and seeing anything beyond it as too demanding and unfair? Why is it that this content should only be designed around this base, when all other places in the game where gameplay is relevant has options? That comment shows just how important it is to provide a choice, because when the only way to enjoy the content is skewed so heavily to one side you alienate a large number of players, regardless of if you prefer it that way or not.

Alienate a large number of players?

What evidence do you have of that?

Any player who doesn't actively enjoy the current difficulty level, which like I said is pushed to one end of the difficulty spectrum. There have been many mention of players who tried introducing friends to the game but those friends found the game to simple even at those early levels, and I myself run end game pve content and hear plenty of this kind of feedback from those in my own social group.

Unless you are able to pull an actual percentage of players in game who actively enjoy the content as is then we can't compare that, but knowing full well that I've had plenty of experiences with people voicing their dissatisfaction with the game, in particular about how they're unable to really enjoy the largest bit of it, that it is at least a decent number of people. So many players I know only log in to do raids or do crafting writs, they've done dungeons to death and have the gear on top of it, so what else is for them to enjoy if the overland experience is so off-putting that they decide instead to log off sooner every session?

spartaxoxo

We don't have a specific percentage, but we do know that whatever that percentage is, it's the vast majority. Devs have stated that on many occasions, and it's a primary reason they don't want to change things.

If it wasn't, and it actually affected their bottom line, they'd have made a change a long time ago. Clearly they aren't having trouble entertaining and retaining players.

Also anecdotal, but I'm the main person that complains about this in my social groups. I have also encountered a LOT of hostility when I bring up wanting a change over the years from people "tired of the game catering to elitists."

ETA

I don't personally think ZoS actions make any sense whatsoever, if we're large in comparison to the rest of the playerbase. I just wish they stopped looking at it as a numbers thing, and players stopped pretending it's a numbers thing because ZoS has those numbers and know it's wrong and aren't convinced by such arguments. Instead I wish they thought of it as a community thing. There are plenty of niche communities they do nice things for. PVP, Trials, Housing.....why can't this community gets some love too even if it's relatively small?

TheS1X

I see difficulty slider best thing that they can do with this game.
Low difficulty is what it is atm, then medium and then hard mode where loot and quality of thigs get 3x better.
This would be amazing thing to do actually, this would solve problem where some like one click kills and others want to sweat + it would solve reward problem too. ZOS plz do it...

Kamatsu

CP5 wrote: »

Any player who doesn't actively enjoy the current difficulty level, which like I said is pushed to one end of the difficulty spectrum. There have been many mention of players who tried introducing friends to the game but those friends found the game to simple even at those early levels, and I myself run end game pve content and hear plenty of this kind of feedback from those in my own social group.

Thing is, anecdotal evidence like that doesn't really mean anything. I know you realize this, as you did state that we don't have specific percents for ESO itself. Comments by ppl saying "I have friends who wont play due to current difficulty / if it gets made harder" don't really show a full picture - especially when you remember that forum-goers make up a small percent of a games active population.

What we can go on is look at historic examples and evidence from both this game and other MMO's:

- WoW was a huge success due to it being by Blizzard, the Warcraft franchise, and because it was the most accessible MMO to date. It was a game where you could solo the vast majority of the open world and story quest's... unlike Everquest.
- WoW dev's came out many, many years ago to explain the changes they were making to raiding in the WorLK expansion was due to how few players ever set foot in the raids or any of the games 'harder' content. At the time only around 7-8% of the pop had ever done any of WoW's harder content, only around 4-5% got geared up and finished the 1st raid, only ~1% made it to the final raid, and less than 0.5% finished it.
- Over the years many Game dev's have come forth to state that their official game forums only account for 10-15% of their active forum base, and usually these are the more invested players. STO, WoW and LotRO are MMO's I can remember saying this.
- ESO's dev's have stated the game was failing to keep and attract players prior to One Tamerial, that ppl would play till don e 1 story and leave due to difficulty in Vet regions. They have said the game is way, way more successfull now that the game is a lot easier for players.
- 'Easy to play' MMO's have tried going harder, and none have succeed in keeping or growing. For me a classic example is Guild Wars 2... which was dead easy in the base game, and had all the same complaints as you see in this thread. ANet listened and it's 1st expansion was way harder... ANet proceeded to lose a huge chunk of it's players and suffered a 66-67% loss of profit after the expansion. It was so bad they had to apologize for making it hard, had to nerf the hell out of things, make lots of events and such much easier... and it's 2nd and 3rd expansions were a lot easier and more solo friendly, and better received than the 1st expansion.
- Look at how many other "hard" MMO's have come and gone. Yes the difficulty of games, or appealing to 'difficulty lovers', wasn't the only reason they failed... but it was an aspect.

However, as people in this thread have also pointed out - the metrics that ESO dev's are using might not be that accurate... because how many ppl are still logging in to get dailies, do daily craft writs, etc that might want to play a harder overland experience but can't... and ESO's metrics likely is flagging them as ppl still enjoying casual/easy content despite them not doing so. TBH we don't know exactly what they measure with their metrics... what counts to them as someone 'preferring it this way' or not. Obviously if ppl are still logging in, there is something they still like / want... but it doesn't mean the metrics actually show it.

Other than the in-game metric stats (ie did they log in, collect dailies, what did they do, etc), which as stated might not be really accurate, there is only 2 ways of having a full idea of just how much dislike there is... and either way has flaws as well.

- Everyone who wants harder completely quits and e-mails ESO team why they are quitting. This obviously won't show anything to the public, and relies of ppl doing the e-mail... and ESO team listening / responding. Also way to easy just to spam e-mail accounts to make this an inflated # (ie wait till a 'play for free' event, create a lot of free e-mail addresses and viola.. spammed responses.
- ESO team sends out a full questionnaire for ppl to fill out. Do it when no 'play for free' event on, and only send it to accounts that have shown a level of being active over the past 2 years (ie played on a paid game for at least some rime, not just free play events). Problem with this is making it short enough to get a good portion of ppl to respond, while also asking relevant stuff. Many ppl will not even bother responding... thus not giving a full picture.

I wonder how many would be happy if at the very least ESO looks at working on making Instanced content more scaleable. Stuff like instanced story fights, story boss fights, Delves, etc. Stuff that always gets it's own instance away from the normal game instance anyways... assuming the hardware can cope (and with the upgrades, it should hopefully be less of an issue) then maybe they could have options for harder story instances and delve's for those who want it. That way even if it's just once only (ie story) or infrequent? (ie Delves)... you are getting something.

Doing this would also help show actual in-game metrics for demand for it. Because if you have a selectable harder "instanced" stuff... they can then see just how many ppl actually select and use it. This would, imo, give a better idea of whether it would be worth the $ to work on it further or not (more so than a discussion on these forums does).

Agenericname

@Kamatsu

Thats a great post.

"I wonder how many would be happy if at the very least ESO looks at working on making Instanced content more scaleable. Stuff like instanced story fights, story boss fights, Delves, etc. Stuff that always gets it's own instance away from the normal game instance anyways... assuming the hardware can cope (and with the upgrades, it should hopefully be less of an issue) then maybe they could have options for harder story instances and delve's for those who want it. That way even if it's just once only (ie story) or infrequent? (ie Delves)... you are getting something"

That would be great, provided the scalability was optional.

I personally dont care about every wolf, spider, or bandit spamming agony in overland. I would be pretty happy with the increase in difficulty in the stories though.

SilverBride

Kamatsu wrote: »

I wonder how many would be happy if at the very least ESO looks at working on making Instanced content more scaleable. Stuff like instanced story fights, story boss fights, Delves, etc. Stuff that always gets it's own instance away from the normal game instance anyways... assuming the hardware can cope (and with the upgrades, it should hopefully be less of an issue) then maybe they could have options for harder story instances and delve's for those who want it. That way even if it's just once only (ie story) or infrequent? (ie Delves)... you are getting something.

Only if it was completely optional. I don't want my instanced story fights and story boss fights any more difficult than they currently are. I have too many bad memories of wanting to progress in the story but being stuck, sometimes for days, on a story boss fight.

One player's sense of satisfaction and accomplishment is another player's sense of frustration and failure.

EozZoe1989

i think people should help others who want to vets.. so that they can get the achievemnts done and wont do them again.. people need stop rage quitting lol.. [snip] sorry but vets need to be done its for the achievements if anything then make easier lol but then make everyone angry lol

[edited for baiting]

tokeinskyblu

OK lads

I have taken on some advice to make the overland content harder.

Using the armory I have set up a build called gimped.

1. No champion points apart from green tree.
2.no attribute points
3. Only class, armor and weapon skill abilities and passive. (Passives outside these that don't provide advantage in combat I pick up like persuasive will)
4. Only the *** food, drinks and potions that you pick up are used.
5. All white no set crafted gear used.
6. only 1 bar of ability to be used (no weapon swap in combat.


I am using this set up to try and make the main story quests a bit more challenging and fun.

It seems like overland content is made for this kind of set-up aka new characters.

Even with these restrictions on my build the content isn't really that difficult.

Most annoying thing with this is when I see harwostorms or world bosses I need to swap builds. Also if I'm q for battleground and it pops I need to leave combat quickly swap to pvp build before I can enter the battle ground.

All in all I think if you want to slow down the overland quests and main story with providing a little bit more of a challenge this is a way you can do it. Kind of opposite of what an RPG is all about though it kind if works.

Personally I think the new zones and expansions should be made for end game. There is so much content already to get leveled up and all the new zones that are built and coming in future should be balanced for cp 1000+