Overland Content Feedback Thread

SilverBride

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

The sooner ZOS leadership changes their tune and decides to give the people what they want, the sooner we can catch up and start buying and playing the new stuff.

ESO had veteran overland zones at launch and players weren't playing them. This was one of the reasons for One Tamriel. Players didn't want difficulty in questing then and many still don't today.

If a player is losing interest it is most likely because this isn't the right game for their playstyle or burnout... or both.

Maybe what they need to do is drop the ceiling some more.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

The sooner ZOS leadership changes their tune and decides to give the people what they want, the sooner we can catch up and start buying and playing the new stuff.

ESO had veteran overland zones at launch and players weren't playing them. This was one of the reasons for One Tamriel. Players didn't want difficulty in questing then and many still don't today.

If a player is losing interest it is most likely because this isn't the right game for their playstyle or burnout... or both.

Maybe what they need to do is drop the ceiling some more.

You mentioned how you don't enjoy doing vet dungeons or pvp and avoid doing them since they aren't the kind of content you do. But do you ever do normal dungeons? At all? Why is it that dungeons and trials should offer choice to players, but overland shouldn't?

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

The sooner ZOS leadership changes their tune and decides to give the people what they want, the sooner we can catch up and start buying and playing the new stuff.

ESO had veteran overland zones at launch and players weren't playing them. This was one of the reasons for One Tamriel. Players didn't want difficulty in questing then and many still don't today.

If a player is losing interest it is most likely because this isn't the right game for their playstyle or burnout... or both.

Maybe what they need to do is drop the ceiling some more.

You mentioned how you don't enjoy doing vet dungeons or pvp and avoid doing them since they aren't the kind of content you do. But do you ever do normal dungeons? At all? Why is it that dungeons and trials should offer choice to players, but overland shouldn't?

Because they are two very different aspects of this game with very different goals.

Blackbird_V

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

The sooner ZOS leadership changes their tune and decides to give the people what they want, the sooner we can catch up and start buying and playing the new stuff.

ESO had veteran overland zones at launch and players weren't playing them. This was one of the reasons for One Tamriel. Players didn't want difficulty in questing then and many still don't today.

If a player is losing interest it is most likely because this isn't the right game for their playstyle or burnout... or both.

Maybe what they need to do is drop the ceiling some more.

You mentioned how you don't enjoy doing vet dungeons or pvp and avoid doing them since they aren't the kind of content you do. But do you ever do normal dungeons? At all? Why is it that dungeons and trials should offer choice to players, but overland shouldn't?

[snip] old Cadwells which was overall just awfully done at a time where the game wasn't as popular, we had a whole different ranking system (veteran ranks) and the zones were mostly alliance locked. Like if you were DC, cadwells silver would be AD and cadwells gold zone was EP, and in those zones you could ONLY play and see DC chars. It was awfully done and unfun at the time. However, things change over time...

There were many many flaws back then. [snip]

[Edited for Baiting]

CP5

Not really, they're both content meant to be enjoyed. I can't enjoy the overland, the exploration, the story, any of it, because I can't take it seriously. I can't believe the stakes of the story when I know how laughably easy the encounter with the 'big bad' will be. I can't believe the dead lands are anything more than an amusement park when they should be one of the most perilous locations in the world. I don't make any lasting memories or have any enjoyable experiences pushing over non-threats or navigating places where, aside from the visuals, nothing is meaningful enough to leave an impression.

I mentioned ages ago how, in Dragons Dogma, I was walking through the woods at night, no fighting, no 'super amazing awesome 10million health boss' coming out of nothing, just it being dark made that experience memorable, with the tension that something may happen. But now what in ESO is there? Formulaic zones, content that involves so little effort on my part as to be instantly forgettable, and with my trial guild now essentially dead since the last raid lead got tired of having to find fills for half the group every week, they gave up. I can't blame them, but without that weekly run I haven't been back in game. Thousands of hours I have spent in it, and years worth of content I would have to do, but having the content being so disengaging is what is driving me away, not being burnt out.

So please try to understand that people can find different parts of the same kind of content enjoyable, and adding options would allow more people to enjoy it. What good is the argument 'it would divide the player base' when it comes at the cost of driving people away?

spartaxoxo

More people would leave if they couldn't find groups than those that dislike overland enough to quit. If that wasn't the case, it would have been done already.

I don't know why they don't just add a difficulty slider that adds debuffs to your character and opens them up to exclusive attacks ala LOTR, because that keeps things from being split and gives us more options, and is probably cheaper than redoing all the maps for a vet version. But, I don't think they care at this point. They are one of the most profitable games on the market and they've already stated that the vast majority of the playerbase is engaged with the story in overland. So they just don't care about how vets feel, unfortunately.

AlexanderDeLarge

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this but Craglorn and Cadwell Silver/Gold are completely irrelevant by virtue of the game being overhauled beyond recognition. One Tamriel was as much of a reboot to The Elder Scrolls Online as A Realm Reborn was to Final Fantasy XIV 1.0.

There's a dozen different reasons why players didn't engage with Craglorn and Cadwell Silver/Gold. The perceived difficulty is pretty far down that list assuming it makes the list at all. The fact of the matter is Craglorn, a group mandatory zone, was introduced at a time when grouping itself was broken. Questing with others was a nightmare because the phasing tech wasn't up to snuff to the point. Compound this with the veteran rank progression system being a slog, the game getting reviewed poorly, the $15/mo subscription being enforced on top of all these issues and it's no shocker that statistically One Tamriel is considered a massive success compared to what we had to deal with back then but that doesn't mean the game is forever beyond criticism.

This is such ancient history. Why are you and others, including developer(s?), still referencing The Elder Scrolls Online's launch experience eight and a half years ago when we're 35 updates, 22 paid DLCs and 6 retail expansion packs past it not including a complete overhaul of the game?

CP5

No one is finding a group with someone who isn't in game. And of those players who don't enjoy overland but still log in, they do so for writs, or for pre-scheduled raids and dungeon runs, then likely leave. They aren't white knighting in zone waiting to save another player's day, at least the number of people who do that are very slim. Debuffs alone don't necessarily fix things due to inept npc combat tools, say a conjurer literally blowing bubbles or a healer being unable to heal a simple paper cut. On top of that a player seeking a challenge having it ruined by a player playing on normal blitzing through the content is an issue casual players already experience when a vet player runs past them, and expanding on the number of cases where that happens isn't good in my opinion.

But you're right, they care about the constant revenue they can gain from catering to those who jump on for new releases then likely leave until the next, so no time for updating older things when there is a demand for new shinnies instead.

AlexanderDeLarge

SilverBride wrote: »

Because they are two very different aspects of this game with very different goals.

Instead of viewing it that way, consider that a veteran overland feature could be used as a way to introduce players to mechanics actually mattering in veteran dungeons, arenas and trials instead of throwing players into the deep end with absolutely nothing preparing them for it.

As-is the PvE experience isn't a difficulty curve. It's a difficulty spike with little stick figures falling off the mountain. The addition of a veteran overland/difficulty scaling feature could address that in a major way.

I can not for the life of me understand why you are so against this. It's optional. We have veteran phasing for dungeons, arenas and trials. Why should the overland experience be any different? Especially when it accounts for the majority of the content we're paying for.

spartaxoxo

The developers themselves got a ton of feedback about the game being too difficult back then, and explicitly stated as much. It wasn't pretty far down the list, it was a primary driving force behind their changes.

CP5

And yet they still cite 8 year old feedback as a rule to stand by without fully understanding the context that feedback was given in. Craglorn was 'difficult' by being built for groups of 4, meaning if you tried to do it solo you would be overwhelmed by 2 dps worth of damage expected, and incoming damage designed around having a dedicated tank and healer. Gold and silver zones were 'difficult' by just stat boosting the mobs, but if you got past that initial hurdle it was more of the same honestly, with enemies who don't really do anything all that impactful.

I've said it before and AlexanderDeLarge just repeated the idea, many newer players get the false impression that any group content is well beyond them difficulty wise because they never learn how to use any of the tools they already have. If a boss has an attack that one-shots, but not if you're blocking, but no mob in overland hits hard enough to justify blocking, why would anyone expect a player with only experience in overland to think to block? They'll instead think the content's too hard and quit, and likely grow resentful of experienced players 'telling them what to do.'

There are current issues that this system could be used to resolve, but if the developers and others are locked into a mindset established almost a decade ago then we'll just wait and see how bad these issues become before something is done.

SilverBride

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Because they are two very different aspects of this game with very different goals.

Instead of viewing it that way, consider that a veteran overland feature could be used as a way to introduce players to mechanics actually mattering in veteran dungeons, arenas and trials instead of throwing players into the deep end with absolutely nothing preparing them for it.

This is assuming that all players want to do veteran dungeons, arenas and trials. Many of us don't so we don't need "trained" to do content we have no interest in. We just want to quest and explore and enjoy the story.

AlexanderDeLarge

I actually searched for complaints about the game being too difficult back in 2014-2015 before I made that post and the vast majority of what popped up was actually people complaining about it being too hard to group and play with their friends. I'm sure there were complaints about Craglorn and World Bosses being too hard but how much of that can be directly attributed to technical issues related to phasing/grouping including attempting grouped content solo out of necessity? That's a huge contributing factor to any argument surrounding difficulty during that period. Not to mention the entire concept of leveling and veteran ranks that haven't been a factor in five plus years.

The vanilla experience's on-boarding was subpar and I don't think anyone at ZOS would disagree. Things have changed since then quite dramatically. Somethings for the better. Somethings for the worse, such as the power creep necessitating the difficulty scaling being discussed. Regardless, for anyone who felt the game was 'too hard', their complaints have been addressed for the better part of a decade. Time for ZOS to address the increasing sentiment that the game is too easy for their veteran players now.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

And yet they still cite 8 year old feedback as a rule to stand by without fully understanding the context that feedback was given in. .

They understood it just fine. They spent hours upon hours researching the feedback and built the whole back up from near failure to one of the most profitable MMOs on the market. There was a LOT of feedback that explicitly stated people didn't like the difficulty back then and stated things like Harvesters as why, which has nothing to do with stuff like your alliance.

I don't understand why there's such a push to try to convince people like Rich that he doesn't understand something they spent months of research understanding using actual player data. It's like the opposite of how persuasive arguments should be formatted. The devs are the ones that need to be persuaded to do something. And saying our anecdotes trump their data and research isn't going to convince them.

AlexanderDeLarge

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Because they are two very different aspects of this game with very different goals.

Instead of viewing it that way, consider that a veteran overland feature could be used as a way to introduce players to mechanics actually mattering in veteran dungeons, arenas and trials instead of throwing players into the deep end with absolutely nothing preparing them for it.

This is assuming that all players want to do veteran dungeons, arenas and trials. Many of us don't so we don't need "trained" to do content we have no interest in. We just want to quest and explore and enjoy the story.

Okay then don't engage with veteran content. You don't have to. A veteran overland would be just as opt-in as veteran dungeons, arenas and trials. The only argument against it seems to be this weird fearmongering about potentially 'splitting the community'.

Speaking for myself, I'm already not playing the game and a lack of difficulty scaling is commonly cited as the reason why others are not playing the game either within and outside these forums. To be clear, I'm advocating for choice and you're arguing against the choice that exists in every other PvE aspect of the game.

AlexanderDeLarge

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I don't understand why there's such a push to try to convince people like Rich that he doesn't understand something they spent months of research understanding using actual player data. It's like the opposite of how persuasive arguments should be formatted. The devs are the ones that need to be persuaded to do something. And saying our anecdotes trump their data and research isn't going to convince them.

I've said it before in this thread but I'm a huge fan of transparency. Communicate that data to us beyond 'we already had vet overland in cadwell silver/gold and you didn't play it lol' and we can finally have an informed, open discussion versus what is happening now where people on the other side of the debate hide behind some vague statement about 'data' which may or may not actually exist?

Why should I or anyone else take that sort of statement at face value when the Cadwell Silver/Gold comment itself is ridiculous?

spartaxoxo

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Why should I or anyone else take that sort of statement at face value when the Cadwell Silver/Gold comment itself is ridiculous?

Because Rich is the one that said it and it's him you need to convince.

AlexanderDeLarge

I can't convince someone that refuses to have the discussion beyond the canned 'cadwell silver/gold' retort. 133 pages into a pinned thread and not once have we had any meaningful engagement from ZOS beyond moderation and a 'we hear you' almost a year ago.

SilverBride

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Because they are two very different aspects of this game with very different goals.

Instead of viewing it that way, consider that a veteran overland feature could be used as a way to introduce players to mechanics actually mattering in veteran dungeons, arenas and trials instead of throwing players into the deep end with absolutely nothing preparing them for it.

This is assuming that all players want to do veteran dungeons, arenas and trials. Many of us don't so we don't need "trained" to do content we have no interest in. We just want to quest and explore and enjoy the story.

Okay then don't engage with veteran content. You don't have to. A veteran overland would be just as opt-in as veteran dungeons, arenas and trials. The only argument against it seems to be this weird fearmongering about potentially 'splitting the community'.

Speaking for myself, I'm already not playing the game and a lack of difficulty scaling is commonly cited as the reason why others are not playing the game either within and outside these forums. To be clear, I'm advocating for choice and you're arguing against the choice that exists in every other PvE aspect of the game.

Not every game is a good fit for everyone, but this game is a good fit for a lot of players, myself included. I play every day as do many of my friends. I see no reason to put the time and cost into developing something that most current players do not want on the chance that it may bring in a few new players.

AlexanderDeLarge

It's not about bringing in new players. It's about doing the absolute least to keep the ones they already have and are increasingly feeling like they got burned as a result of the power creep that they're responsible for. In every other aspect of the game ZOS gladly admits that power creep is a problem but when it comes to the overland experience it's totally fine? Can't have it both ways.

The fact that you're bringing up time and cost investments as justification to ignore this kind of feature during the year they introduced a card game as their big feature is... Yeah, no further comment.

spartaxoxo

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

I can't convince someone that refuses to have the discussion beyond the canned 'cadwell silver/gold' retort. 133 pages into a pinned thread and not once have we had any meaningful engagement from ZOS beyond moderation and a 'we hear you' almost a year ago.

Well if you were an expert with actual hard data and research on something and a bunch of people's idea of a discussion was just saying you're a liar and everyone who agrees with you is full of nonsense, is that a discussion that you would want to enter into? Or would you rather enter a discussion where people took in what you said, built off that and brought new points not covered by your original statement?

It baffles me after this many pages of that being a failed rhetorical strategy, it's still the debate being had.

Instead of working constructively by taking in his feedback and building on it to refine arguments or address concerns, we're still, still having the same tired discussion about whether or not he's telling the truth. Just the same people talking in circles, and I include myself in that too. I'm just as guilty of it.

I sometimes wish we had a brand new thread where we could start fresh, with a brand new developer reply to work from. Perhaps they could do a Q&A about the most common discussion points here. Regardless, in the end I think this thread will continue to serve as a place where people just treat the developer's word as either horse malarkey or absolute truth, and debate in circles about it. And the devs will continue to ignore it, because at this point they've seen it all.

AlexanderDeLarge

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Well if you were an expert with actual hard data and research on something and a bunch of people's idea of a discussion was just saying you're a liar and everyone who agrees with you is full of nonsense, is that a discussion that you would want to enter into? Or would you rather enter a discussion where people took in what you said, built off that and brought new points not covered by your original statement?

I probably wouldn't like that no but I'd at least sympathize with my customers expressing their dissatisfaction and try my best to be a little more open-minded when I've heard the same complaint about my product for the thousandth time. I certainly wouldn't blame them for any skepticism of 'the facts' when those have been withheld from them.

No one in a creative field enjoys the 'negative comments' but I certainly expect more input from the developers in a pinned thread that was made in response to this discussion being recurring enough to warrant it.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Because they are two very different aspects of this game with very different goals.

Instead of viewing it that way, consider that a veteran overland feature could be used as a way to introduce players to mechanics actually mattering in veteran dungeons, arenas and trials instead of throwing players into the deep end with absolutely nothing preparing them for it.

This is assuming that all players want to do veteran dungeons, arenas and trials. Many of us don't so we don't need "trained" to do content we have no interest in. We just want to quest and explore and enjoy the story.

And some would like to, some would like to learn somewhere outside of group content. Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

And yet they still cite 8 year old feedback as a rule to stand by without fully understanding the context that feedback was given in. .

They understood it just fine. They spent hours upon hours researching the feedback and built the whole back up from near failure to one of the most profitable MMOs on the market. There was a LOT of feedback that explicitly stated people didn't like the difficulty back then and stated things like Harvesters as why, which has nothing to do with stuff like your alliance.

I don't understand why there's such a push to try to convince people like Rich that he doesn't understand something they spent months of research understanding using actual player data. It's like the opposite of how persuasive arguments should be formatted. The devs are the ones that need to be persuaded to do something. And saying our anecdotes trump their data and research isn't going to convince them.

As for Rich's response, in December on his stream he answered a question about overland content and that 'harder overland failed in gold/silver' despite many people outlining why that isn't the case, and then several months later after this thread's creation he gave the exact same response in a Q&A, this thread and its feedback has not been researched, listened to, or noticed.

The fact that the feedback threat is constantly being derailed because some question the intent of those providing the feedback or just say 'everything is fine as is and if you don't like it then leave' doesn't help matters. I want to enjoy ESO and see it succeed for the long term, but leaving glaring issues like this sitting for so long and doing nothing to try to resolve the conflict that is arising around it only makes things worse, and the silence ZOS has shown here is the biggest pain point.

SilverBride

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

It's not about bringing in new players. It's about doing the absolute least to keep the ones they already have and are increasingly feeling like they got burned as a result of the power creep that they're responsible for. In every other aspect of the game ZOS gladly admits that power creep is a problem but when it comes to the overland experience it's totally fine? Can't have it both ways.

The fact that you're bringing up time and cost investments as justification to ignore this kind of feature during the year they introduced a card game as their big feature is... Yeah, no further comment.

The card game brought a fresh new element to the game and it's been very successful. Veteran overland would just be the same story only it would take longer to do everything. As Rich pointed out most players will do the thing that's the easiest so how many players would actually be using it?

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

It's not about bringing in new players. It's about doing the absolute least to keep the ones they already have and are increasingly feeling like they got burned as a result of the power creep that they're responsible for. In every other aspect of the game ZOS gladly admits that power creep is a problem but when it comes to the overland experience it's totally fine? Can't have it both ways.

The fact that you're bringing up time and cost investments as justification to ignore this kind of feature during the year they introduced a card game as their big feature is... Yeah, no further comment.

The card game brought a fresh new element to the game and it's been very successful. Veteran overland would just be the same story only it would take longer to do everything. As Rich pointed out most players will do the thing that's the easiest so how many players would actually be using it?

It would be a story I could take seriously, a story I would actually engage with, a piece of content I would do. Many people in this thread echo that mentality that we don't do years worth of content because it isn't worth doing. I don't want to waste my time on content that I will forget because at no point did I feel engaged enough to be bothered to remember. Disregarding players because their interest are more niche will cause them to leave, self-fulfilling the 'they're too small of a group to bother with' issue. And what happens if the precedence is set that issues won't be fixed, and then those who stuck around after telling others to deal with the issues are then facing one themselves, should they expect any efforts to be made to fix it or should they expect to be cast aside as ZOS continues to focus purely on cycling new faces into the game as much as possible.

AlexanderDeLarge

SilverBride wrote: »

The card game brought a fresh new element to the game and it's been very successful.

Citation needed. Because the feedback I've seen has been quite negative and a quick google search seems to reinforce the sentiment that players are upset that the year's big feature was 'wasted' and it's not particularly popular. Google Trends data indicates that interest in The Elder Scrolls Online is the lowest its ever been for a chapter release.
https://old.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/wn5suf/why_did_the_card_game_die_so_fast/

SilverBride wrote: »

Veteran overland would just be the same story only it would take longer to do everything. As Rich pointed out most players will do the thing that's the easiest so how many players would actually be using it?

Then why is there a pinned thread full of people suggesting the contrary? It's not just this thread either. It's not just this forum. The demand for a veteran overland or difficulty scaling feature overwhelmingly leans one way and it's not yours.

You can say it's a vocal minority all you want but again I'm a huge fan of transparency, put it to a vote.
"Would you rather have had Tales of Tribute or Veteran Overland as the gameplay feature in High Isle?"

spartaxoxo

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Well if you were an expert with actual hard data and research on something and a bunch of people's idea of a discussion was just saying you're a liar and everyone who agrees with you is full of nonsense, is that a discussion that you would want to enter into? Or would you rather enter a discussion where people took in what you said, built off that and brought new points not covered by your original statement?

I probably wouldn't like that no but I'd at least sympathize with my customers expressing their dissatisfaction and try my best to be a little more open-minded when I've heard the same complaint about my product for the thousandth time. I certainly wouldn't blame them for any skepticism of 'the facts' when those have been withheld from them.

No one in a creative field enjoys the 'negative comments' but I certainly expect more input from the developers in a pinned thread that was made in response to this discussion being recurring enough to warrant it.

More and more developers are handling things exactly like this one has, and it's precisely because there's no point in trying to have a discussion that basically calls everything they do false and is otherwise ultra negative. I certainly expected more of a response myself, but honestly seeing this dragged all back up again made me realize why we probably haven't had it. And again, I am also contributor to that, so it's not a knock on anyone in particular.

AlexanderDeLarge

SilverBride wrote: »

That is one player's opinion, not fact.

The public vote held by Minotaur, a content creator that exclusively makes videos about TESO with 114,000 subscribers had >=2,000 votes. That by definition is not "one player's opinion". It's 1,660 opinions at the very least.
83% said they'd like a veteran overland or hard mode toggle (1,660 votes).
17% said they wouldn't (340 votes).

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I said that difficulty scaling is overwhelmingly popular within and outside these forums. You see it everywhere on social media including here to such a degree that we have a pinned thread about it because the topic came up so much. Like I said earlier it's funny how ZOS is willing to acknowledge power creep as a problem but when it comes to the topic of a veteran overland feature or something similar, it's totally fine as-is.

It's disingenuous to suggest that this debate doesn't sway towards supporting some sort of difficulty scaling in overland when I could probably count the people against it in this very thread on two hands. Maybe three.

colossalvoids

CP5 wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

Well, by looking through pts forums for update 36 i saw the smallest amount of hype compared to any previous updates i witnessed before. The only few active discussions are about class balancing, which remained untouched barring wardens. Same for other forums, streamers and in game conversations: 0 anticipation of anything new or exciting.

Maybe i’m wrong in my assumption, but imho zone dlc alone in their current state aren’t that popular as some want to believe. There are some mystics to grind but other than that my expectations are pretty low: short and easy questline, aimed at brand new players and repeatable dailies for same 2 delves and bosses. No longevity or progression and very few reasons to ever revisit or replay it on different characters once everything completed on the main. Just something you do over the weekend and forever forget. The only positive is that this one at least free. I wish I could be more enthusiastic when new dlc drops.

I'm extremely frustrated because I love the druid archetype and Firesong is straight up my alley but it's not even worth playing through in the current implementation of overland. I'll login and see if there's any mounts finally worth spending my leftover crowns on but that's probably it.

The amount of live events, chapters and DLCs I've missed out on playing during their respective cycles is really starting to add up. The sooner ZOS leadership changes their tune and decides to give the people what they want, the sooner we can catch up and start buying and playing the new stuff.

I would love to get back in, maybe even redo some of the content I haven't touched in years, but instead I get a few quests into a story and lose all interest.

So much this, even doing unorthodox things like bare hand/self fund builds etc. are captivating just for awhile as game is absolutely playable this way without any challenge whatsoever. Yeah, I can hear one more line of dialogue but encounters re still brain-dead to take it seriously, so I'm going back to single payer tes games asap to have a feel of something adventurous.

spartaxoxo

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

That is one player's opinion, not fact.

The public vote held by Minotaur, a content creator that exclusively makes videos about TESO had >=2,000 votes. That by definition is not "one player's opinion". It's 1,660 opinions at the very least. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I said that difficulty scaling is overwhelmingly popular within and outside these forums.
83% said they'd like a veteran overland or hard mode toggle (1,660 votes).
17% said they wouldn't (340 votes).

It's disingenuous to suggest that this debate doesn't sway towards supporting some sort of difficulty scaling in overland when I could probably count the people against it in this very thread on two hands. Maybe three.

A sample biased poll doesn't really tell us much of anything. I fall into that 83% myself, but the people voting on a content creator's poll is already going to skew less casual from jump. Same with anyone engaging in social media.