Look - could we all just stop attacking each other? I'm fairly sure that some uptick in overland difficulty is going to happen at some point. And I'll figure it out when it happens.
I'm actually happy with overland myself, because mega ping just means it's a lot more difficult already for me, but when it happens I'll deal. Or if it's really a huge problem for me, I'll quit playing and go back to Oblivion and Skyrim. At that point I'd miss ESO, but if I can't handle the harder version, well....
There are plenty of people like myself who are hopeful that something can be done, and given ESO is a video game and already has the parts needed to implement this in place, it would be possible to add this without negatively impacting others. Some users are concerned that if anything were to happen then it would be forced on them, and there are some who do not want anything to happen whose post often inflame the concerns in others. It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion when both ZOS being silent on the matter and some intentionally undermining the discussion. If I, and others like me, weren't to speak up for ourselves clearly and directly the others would drag our intentions through the mud, which is why this thread exists, and several others were rapidly locked before its creation. That is the reason for these responses.
There are plenty of people like myself who are hopeful that something can be done, and given ESO is a video game and already has the parts needed to implement this in place, it would be possible to add this without negatively impacting others. Some users are concerned that if anything were to happen then it would be forced on them, and there are some who do not want anything to happen whose post often inflame the concerns in others. It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion when both ZOS being silent on the matter and some intentionally undermining the discussion. If I, and others like me, weren't to speak up for ourselves clearly and directly the others would drag our intentions through the mud, which is why this thread exists, and several others were rapidly locked before its creation. That is the reason for these responses.
Well, part of my issue is that really, bottom line, I don't expect ZOS to do "optional" period. The pushback from others - yeah, I get that there's a lot of stuff going on there, but much of what's posted has "proprietary" written all over it.
And that's really all I'm willing to post.
...So, if they were able to create an optional increased difficulty, that had no impact on those that did not want to use it, but would allow those who wanted to use it the option to get harder difficulty levels, would you have a problem with that and if so why?
When an instance is created, it refers to a list of things that particular instance needs to create it. You have fixed instances like Cyrodiil where each instance is fixed, with a clearly defined ruleset and the inability to generate additional instances to support particularly high populations, with more instances needing to be made manually, but that's the only place in game where that's needed.
[omitted housing paragraph]
When an instance is initialized, that is when the server would need to refer to these unique lists, like when a group of players starts up a dungeon, but once it's created it would require nearly the same amount of resources as any other type of the same instance. Something like the different game modes for battlegrounds may differ more heavily, since some game modes likely require more scripts and networked data, but overall not enough to justify not having them. Because you know what else would increase server strain? Having more players online, and I don't think anyone at ZOS is thinking "we could improve server performance by driving away people."
All versions of a current zones instances "all having the same exact mobs at the same difficulty" doesn't matter, go to a dozen different players homes of the same house, each uniquely furnished, and realize the game doesn't explode when initializing these instances with their different unique settings and assets.
There are plenty of people like myself who are hopeful that something can be done, and given ESO is a video game and already has the parts needed to implement this in place, it would be possible to add this without negatively impacting others. Some users are concerned that if anything were to happen then it would be forced on them, and there are some who do not want anything to happen whose post often inflame the concerns in others. It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion when both ZOS being silent on the matter and some intentionally undermining the discussion. If I, and others like me, weren't to speak up for ourselves clearly and directly the others would drag our intentions through the mud, which is why this thread exists, and several others were rapidly locked before its creation. That is the reason for these responses.
Well, part of my issue is that really, bottom line, I don't expect ZOS to do "optional" period. The pushback from others - yeah, I get that there's a lot of stuff going on there, but much of what's posted has "proprietary" written all over it.
And that's really all I'm willing to post.
So, the question I asked was this...So, if they were able to create an optional increased difficulty, that had no impact on those that did not want to use it, but would allow those who wanted to use it the option to get harder difficulty levels, would you have a problem with that and if so why?
And given your concern, I would rephrase the question So, if they were able and willing to create an optional increased difficulty, that had no impact on those that did not want to use it, but would allow those who wanted to use it the option to get harder difficulty levels, would you have a problem with that and if so why?
Are you willing to answer my question?
When an instance is created, it refers to a list of things that particular instance needs to create it. You have fixed instances like Cyrodiil where each instance is fixed, with a clearly defined ruleset and the inability to generate additional instances to support particularly high populations, with more instances needing to be made manually, but that's the only place in game where that's needed.
[omitted housing paragraph]
When an instance is initialized, that is when the server would need to refer to these unique lists, like when a group of players starts up a dungeon, but once it's created it would require nearly the same amount of resources as any other type of the same instance. Something like the different game modes for battlegrounds may differ more heavily, since some game modes likely require more scripts and networked data, but overall not enough to justify not having them. Because you know what else would increase server strain? Having more players online, and I don't think anyone at ZOS is thinking "we could improve server performance by driving away people."
All versions of a current zones instances "all having the same exact mobs at the same difficulty" doesn't matter, go to a dozen different players homes of the same house, each uniquely furnished, and realize the game doesn't explode when initializing these instances with their different unique settings and assets.
That is nice, but what if ZOS does not have the game designed that way?
Frankly, no one really knows how the megaserver works. There are layers of trickery that they do under the covers. I'd love to find out more, but I fear that anyone who found out would be prohibited from telling us.
However, we do know that the mobs are hand tuned. They have said as much. That means that, at minimum, a veteran zone is going to require that someone go in and hand tune whatever mobs are in it. That right there is going to add to the maintenance burden.
There are plenty of people like myself who are hopeful that something can be done, and given ESO is a video game and already has the parts needed to implement this in place, it would be possible to add this without negatively impacting others. Some users are concerned that if anything were to happen then it would be forced on them, and there are some who do not want anything to happen whose post often inflame the concerns in others. It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion when both ZOS being silent on the matter and some intentionally undermining the discussion. If I, and others like me, weren't to speak up for ourselves clearly and directly the others would drag our intentions through the mud, which is why this thread exists, and several others were rapidly locked before its creation. That is the reason for these responses.
Well, part of my issue is that really, bottom line, I don't expect ZOS to do "optional" period. The pushback from others - yeah, I get that there's a lot of stuff going on there, but much of what's posted has "proprietary" written all over it.
And that's really all I'm willing to post.
So, the question I asked was this...So, if they were able to create an optional increased difficulty, that had no impact on those that did not want to use it, but would allow those who wanted to use it the option to get harder difficulty levels, would you have a problem with that and if so why?
And given your concern, I would rephrase the question So, if they were able and willing to create an optional increased difficulty, that had no impact on those that did not want to use it, but would allow those who wanted to use it the option to get harder difficulty levels, would you have a problem with that and if so why?
Are you willing to answer my question?
I have never had a problem with "optional". I just do not believe that ZOS will do that optional content. And I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to CP5
But as @SilverBride pointed out they used to have harder overland content, that required you to run through the story of the game three times in order to get to the hardest difficulty setting...
But as @SilverBride pointed out they used to have harder overland content, that required you to run through the story of the game three times in order to get to the hardest difficulty setting and based on the information I have right now, there seems to have been no way to turn it back down if you wanted it. So, the idea that it was not used might have had nothing to do with there not being a desire for it, but from poor implementation. And either way, they previously had it in the game and there was no problem with maintenance so your concern about maintenance is irrelevant.
All we are asking for, essentially amounts to this, add something similar to what they used to have, but make it possible (if someone wanted to do so, for a player on a new account who has just created their first character to change the difficulty settings. They used to have it in the game. It just was implemented in a way that was essentially designed to fail. Let's give it another try and implement it in a way that is easier to use and less ambiguous for changing afterwards.
SilverBride wrote: »It'd be a separate instance using what they already have in place, just like any currently well populated zone already has.
But it wouldn't. The current instances that are created to handle the amount of players in the zone at the time all have the same exact mobs at the same difficulty.
Veteran instances with harder mobs with different mechanics would have to be created and maintained.
SilverBride wrote: »It'd be a separate instance using what they already have in place, just like any currently well populated zone already has.
But it wouldn't. The current instances that are created to handle the amount of players in the zone at the time all have the same exact mobs at the same difficulty.
Veteran instances with harder mobs with different mechanics would have to be created and maintained.
It would be as easy as adding a couple lines of code multiplying a few values. There is nothing to maintain, which has been explained in detail.
SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »It'd be a separate instance using what they already have in place, just like any currently well populated zone already has.
But it wouldn't. The current instances that are created to handle the amount of players in the zone at the time all have the same exact mobs at the same difficulty.
Veteran instances with harder mobs with different mechanics would have to be created and maintained.
It would be as easy as adding a couple lines of code multiplying a few values. There is nothing to maintain, which has been explained in detail.
The entire game needs to be maintained as new content is added and changes are made. And it would take a lot more work than just adding a couple of lines and multiplying a few values. Every mob would have to be reworked to have different mechanics.
SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »It'd be a separate instance using what they already have in place, just like any currently well populated zone already has.
But it wouldn't. The current instances that are created to handle the amount of players in the zone at the time all have the same exact mobs at the same difficulty.
Veteran instances with harder mobs with different mechanics would have to be created and maintained.
It would be as easy as adding a couple lines of code multiplying a few values. There is nothing to maintain, which has been explained in detail.
The entire game needs to be maintained as new content is added and changes are made. And it would take a lot more work than just adding a couple of lines and multiplying a few values. Every mob would have to be reworked to have different mechanics.
This would be true if everything wasnt already scaled to full homogenization. As it stands now, mobs would simply need damage, damage protection, and health multipliers, and a seperate set of multipliers for world bosses, quest bosses, delve bosses and public dungeon bosses.
Unless some of you are employed by ZOS/know proprietary info some way, you're just guessing....
I'm not even worried about more difficult overland myself any more; what happens happens. But some of you seem to be indicating you have "insider knowledge".
If you know stuff, uncloak. And if you don't know stuff, quit posting as if you do.
SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »It'd be a separate instance using what they already have in place, just like any currently well populated zone already has.
But it wouldn't. The current instances that are created to handle the amount of players in the zone at the time all have the same exact mobs at the same difficulty.
Veteran instances with harder mobs with different mechanics would have to be created and maintained.
It would be as easy as adding a couple lines of code multiplying a few values. There is nothing to maintain, which has been explained in detail.
The entire game needs to be maintained as new content is added and changes are made. And it would take a lot more work than just adding a couple of lines and multiplying a few values. Every mob would have to be reworked to have different mechanics.
This would be true if everything wasnt already scaled to full homogenization. As it stands now, mobs would simply need damage, damage protection, and health multipliers, and a seperate set of multipliers for world bosses, quest bosses, delve bosses and public dungeon bosses.
How is that going to satisfy the posters asking for mobs not to just be stronger with more health but to actually have new mechanics?
If just making mobs stronger with more health is acceptable, just make a debuff for the player.
Blackbird_V wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »How is that going to satisfy the posters asking for mobs not to just be stronger with more health but to actually have new mechanics?
If just making mobs stronger with more health is acceptable, just make a debuff for the player.
How many times have people posted in this thread where they self-debuff? Where they remove their cp, wield crappy gear and weapons that are of low quality and using no set bonuses, only to find out that they can still nuke delve bosses (basically same trash as quest bosses) in like 8 seconds?
Debuffs for players are just not the answer: it's been tested multiple times.
spartaxoxo wrote: »Debuffs isn't the same thing as removing gear, as the developers can introduce much more severe debuffs than the player can currently manage on their own. And since you're using a debuff slider, you can still wear the same gear and keep all your skills and CP. They also can allow for enemies to unleash new attacks, which is also not something accomplishable with gear. This is something that works in another MMO, so its likely to work in this one too.
spartaxoxo wrote: »Debuffs isn't the same thing as removing gear, as the developers can introduce much more severe debuffs than the player can currently manage on their own. And since you're using a debuff slider, you can still wear the same gear and keep all your skills and CP. They also can allow for enemies to unleash new attacks, which is also not something accomplishable with gear. This is something that works in another MMO, so its likely to work in this one too.
So on player specific debuffs alone, what could a slider do that player based self nerfs can't?
SilverBride wrote: »Rich's Quote on Overland Content
"That's a difficult one because difficulty is definitely subjective. We have millions of players that play The Elder Scrolls Online, and a large portion of them find the game hard and the Overland content challenging, especially as a new player when you don't have gold, all the gear, and Champion Points. Ultimately it comes down to, if we make the game harder, what are the incentives for players to play it at the harder level? That opens up a whole huge can of worms. I also look back and remember we had harder Overland content. We had Cadwell Silver, we had Cadwell Gold, and players really didn't like it. It was too hard for them, and when we did One Tamriel, we ripped all that out based on player feedback. Like, nobody did it. So it's a challenging subject and a difficult question to answer. All I can really say is we're definitely looking at it, but we don't have any major changes planned for the Overland difficulty."
AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »Cadwell Silver and Gold were not veteran overland and playing devil's advocate, even if they were, the game was broken beyond belief and the base game's content wasn't enjoyable to run through once let alone two or three times over at level 50 scaling. Nobody did it because it wasn't fun because the content itself wasn't fun and so was much of the game at the time. One Tamriel's relaunch didn't happen for no reason. It's not like they overhauled a game that was perfectly fine and healthy and breaking records. They implemented One Tamriel to recover from a disastrous launch and a massive overhaul is exactly what they needed to convince people who tried it two years prior to give it another chance.