Overland Content Feedback Thread

SilverBride

AScarlato wrote: »

I find it strange I a video game that they consider difficulty “arbitrary”. Makes even less sense given they do separate players by their chosen difficulty in veteran dungeons and trials.

There is nothing unusual about it. This is the way it is with most MMOs.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

And if I am not playing ToT at all then I am also not playing against other players.

By this logic every player that is playing ToT or running Dungeons, Trials and Arenas, or decorating their Houses, or PvPing are splitting the playerbase because they aren't all engaging with each other in the same activities.

This is very different than taking one particular activity and splitting it into different versions.

Overland is the base game and the story and while it is not "required" it is a big draw for a lot of players. Splitting this would be detrimental to the health of the game.

If you had more options to play ToT at different difficulties against NPCs, would you play it more?

That logic is exactly true, was Cyrodiil decimated when battlegrounds became a thing? Did ToT cause zones to go quiet as people who would otherwise be questing are now in menus playing cards instead?

Overland is not base game, it is simply one activity of many that has been added to over the years, and it exists in this one singular form. Populated zones are already subdivided into instances for both server performance and player usability reasons, so what harm is there in grouping players together in these already existing instances based on player preference? Do you think players like me leaving the game is healthier than us still playing the game, just in an activity different than you?

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

And if I am not playing ToT at all then I am also not playing against other players.

By this logic every player that is playing ToT or running Dungeons, Trials and Arenas, or decorating their Houses, or PvPing are splitting the playerbase because they aren't all engaging with each other in the same activities.

This is very different than taking one particular activity and splitting it into different versions.

Overland is the base game and the story and while it is not "required" it is a big draw for a lot of players. Splitting this would be detrimental to the health of the game.

If you had more options to play ToT at different difficulties against NPCs, would you play it more?

No, because I don't expect the NPCs to be as challenging as other players. If I want more of a challenge in ToT I would go where the challenge is and play other players.

CP5 wrote: »

Overland is not base game, it is simply one activity of many that has been added to over the years, and it exists in this one singular form.

Overland is the base game and the story and has been present from day one.

CP5 wrote: »

Do you think players like me leaving the game is healthier than us still playing the game, just in an activity different than you?

I think it's unhealthy for a game to implement features that would be bad for the playerbase as a whole. Players come and go for a variety of reasons and that will never change.

CP5

Then every single other zone outside the ones from the base game are fair game then?

And also, you left the game before, and came back when ZOS acknowledged that as an issue. Do you think that now, after having benefited from their efforts in the past, that doing the same thing they did to bring you back again would be bad? To address a reason causing people to leave when they otherwise wouldn't? That seems, unfair.

But in all honesty, "bad for the player base as a whole" when the players leaving are, well, leaving, and their absence isn't noticed by other players because they were interacting with the game in content away from them. How do players like you notice trial guilds dying, or pvp guilds withering away, when you don't touch the content? Being on the top deck of a sinking ship doesn't mean the people coming from the lower decks are crazy for saying the ship's flooding. So, just because you don't care for the feature, doesn't mean it is "bad for the player base as a whole," I don't care at all about ToT, or the companions, but they exist for other players, not me, so why can't something be implemented for people who aren't you?

SilverBride

The game was too hard for what I enjoy and had forced grouping so I left. When it changed after One Tamriel it became what I was looking for in a game so I came back. If this change hadn't been made I would have kept playing other games instead.

ZoS made a decision not to spilt the playerbase and I agree with them. This is my opinion and it is not going to change, whether others agree with it or not.

AScarlato

SilverBride wrote: »

AScarlato wrote: »

I find it strange I a video game that they consider difficulty “arbitrary”. Makes even less sense given they do separate players by their chosen difficulty in veteran dungeons and trials.

There is nothing unusual about it. This is the way it is with most MMOs.

The level of brain dead eso overland is, IS unusual for mmos. Every mmo I ever played had more danger than mobs that pretend to engage with you but won’t kill you.

It seems designed for visual novel players.

SilverBride

AScarlato wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AScarlato wrote: »

I find it strange I a video game that they consider difficulty “arbitrary”. Makes even less sense given they do separate players by their chosen difficulty in veteran dungeons and trials.

There is nothing unusual about it. This is the way it is with most MMOs.

The level of brain dead eso overland is, IS unusual for mmos. Every mmo I ever played had more danger than mobs that pretend to engage with you but won’t kill you.

Every single MMO I've played has been this way. In fact, in some games as you become more powerful mobs become easier and easier to the point that they will no longer even attack the player.

In WoW a player can go back to earlier raids and pull and wipe the entire place at once without taking any damage themselves.

Daedralist

My post was closed cause this one was here. So I apologize. That said...

I'm still in favor of having a slightly more difficult overland. I read some people say that I can go "naked" to which I respond with - that makes no sense. Having the difficulty be on the same level as elden ring doesn't make sense either. Why do people always go for the extremes. I suggested a difficulty level of craglorn (which isn't that difficult either). Its much more meaningful out to quest and harvest nodes out there. I know this is my opinion so I'll extend an olive branch. Having 2 modes to choose from would satisfy both parties? On normal mode leave it as is, but on a "vet" overland mode, the mods would be harder. I would even say the rewards could be better there too, but I'm sure that would *** people off. Idk man. I love this game, overland is the only part I hate about it.

AScarlato

SilverBride wrote: »

AScarlato wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

AScarlato wrote: »

I find it strange I a video game that they consider difficulty “arbitrary”. Makes even less sense given they do separate players by their chosen difficulty in veteran dungeons and trials.

There is nothing unusual about it. This is the way it is with most MMOs.

The level of brain dead eso overland is, IS unusual for mmos. Every mmo I ever played had more danger than mobs that pretend to engage with you but won’t kill you.

Every single MMO I've played has been this way. In fact, in some games as you become more powerful mobs become easier and easier to the point that they will no longer even attack the player.

In WoW a player can go back to earlier raids and pull and wipe the entire place at once without taking any damage themselves.

I have played EQ, eq2, ffxiv, secret world, Aion, Tera, and gw2. None of them were like this. Instead they had easy entry level experiences for maybe the first few hours of gameplay for new players to learn basic functions without encountering much resistance. The world slowly becomes more challenging to account for growth in character progression. Here the entire game world is balanced around not scaring off new players or the most unskilled players of any game in existence I guess. Those other games all had basic overworld mobs that could rapidly kill you if you are afk. Here not so much.

You use overlevelling content when that isn’t even the same thing. Other mmos will have higher level content with new expansions. Not here. I’m sure the basic overland mob we get in necrom will be the same push over we have since the entry level islands.

SilverBride

AScarlato wrote: »

Other mmos will have higher level content with new expansions. Not here.

Some other games do have higher level content with new expansions and are very linear in how to play through them. Those games are not set up so that an experienced player can bring a friend to the game and be able to play together from the start. They have to wait, sometimes for a very long time, until their friend catches up and is able to play along side them.

That is not how ESO is. A player new to the game can immediately jump into a new expansion with their experienced friends and play along side them. This means that overland isn't going to get progressively more difficult and it's been this way for 7 years now and has been very successful.

spartaxoxo

Some MMOs also sell level boosters that immediately or quickly trivialize a lot of content, because they want them to play the latest expansion sooner rather than later. And then older players complain about these things because the newer players do their learning in dungeons rather than in old quests. I personally don't consider that to be much different to ESO's approach.

AScarlato

SilverBride wrote: »

AScarlato wrote: »

Other mmos will have higher level content with new expansions. Not here.

Some other games do have higher level content with new expansions and are very linear in how to play through them. Those games are not set up so that an experienced player can bring a friend to the game and be able to play together from the start. They have to wait, sometimes for a very long time, until their friend catches up and is able to play along side them.

That is not how ESO is. A player new to the game can immediately jump into a new expansion with their experienced friends and play along side them. This means that overland isn't going to get progressively more difficult and it's been this way for 7 years now and has been very successful.

And that’s the problem for me that I just stated. A massive percentage of content is dedicated to needing the skill level of brand new players and large percentages of future content will also be designed this way. It’s great a player can go anywhere on the map who is in their first hour of play but I’m sure some percentage of those will also grow bored. Most of the content we get are these easy overland quests, probably more than half of the entire game is this.

Kendaric

AScarlato wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

There is nothing unusual about it. This is the way it is with most MMOs.

The level of brain dead eso overland is, IS unusual for mmos. Every mmo I ever played had more danger than mobs that pretend to engage with you but won’t kill you.

It seems designed for visual novel players.

Then you haven't played a lot of MMORPGs recently.... none of the major titles have remotely difficult overland content. Certainly not WoW or SWTOR and I don't think FFXIV is particularly challenging outside dungeons either (it's been a while since I played FFXIV, but at least then it was pretty easy).

spartaxoxo

AScarlato wrote: »

Most of the content we get are these easy overland quests, probably more than half of the entire game is this.

I think that really depends on how you look at it personally. In terms of number of quests, I would agree this is most of the content. In terms of repeating content, I think that dungeons and world bosses and world events probably provide the bulk of that.

ETA
That content is more repeatable and has a low requirement for grouping (unlike trials) so I think that probably a lot of players spend the majority of their time doing repeatable content. And I think that's probably why devs have shifted focus to ensuring that type of content is a better experience.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

The game was too hard for what I enjoy and had forced grouping so I left. When it changed after One Tamriel it became what I was looking for in a game so I came back. If this change hadn't been made I would have kept playing other games instead.

ZoS made a decision not to spilt the playerbase and I agree with them. This is my opinion and it is not going to change, whether others agree with it or not.

You keep saying "split the player base" without acknowledging either players who left the game, players who don't engage with overland and are therefore currently not even a part of that 'player base,' or how the player base is already subdivided amongst instances. What harm is there in players you never see, never interact with, and maybe don't even see in game, playing the game in an instance without you? Could be a trial, cyrodiil, dungeons, or even another instance of overland you weren't placed into.

AScarlato

Kendaric wrote: »

AScarlato wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

There is nothing unusual about it. This is the way it is with most MMOs.

The level of brain dead eso overland is, IS unusual for mmos. Every mmo I ever played had more danger than mobs that pretend to engage with you but won’t kill you.

It seems designed for visual novel players.

Then you haven't played a lot of MMORPGs recently.... none of the major titles have remotely difficult overland content. Certainly not WoW or SWTOR and I don't think FFXIV is particularly challenging outside dungeons either (it's been a while since I played FFXIV, but at least then it was pretty easy).

I have. I never said it rose to the level of taxing or challenging, but it’s more interactive than this. I absolutely can be killed in ffxiv overland if I’m not careful on a dps class. Here the overland mobs run to you and wait for you to kill them, truly holding back. It’s another level of lacking true interactivity for a massive percentage of the game world.

Then gain, I’m not someone purporting things have to be Elden Ring or this. There is nuance and an in-between. I’m not even asking for EQ1 days of difficulty where new players died to level 1 and 2 rats outside town. Just something more thrilling than a mob hopping around waiting for me to one or two shot them.

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The game was too hard for what I enjoy and had forced grouping so I left. When it changed after One Tamriel it became what I was looking for in a game so I came back. If this change hadn't been made I would have kept playing other games instead.

ZoS made a decision not to spilt the playerbase and I agree with them. This is my opinion and it is not going to change, whether others agree with it or not.

You keep saying "split the player base" without acknowledging either players who left the game, players who don't engage with overland and are therefore currently not even a part of that 'player base,' or how the player base is already subdivided amongst instances. What harm is there in players you never see, never interact with, and maybe don't even see in game, playing the game in an instance without you? Could be a trial, cyrodiil, dungeons, or even another instance of overland you weren't placed into.

I am not going to change my opinion or how I feel about this so let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

AScarlato

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The game was too hard for what I enjoy and had forced grouping so I left. When it changed after One Tamriel it became what I was looking for in a game so I came back. If this change hadn't been made I would have kept playing other games instead.

ZoS made a decision not to spilt the playerbase and I agree with them. This is my opinion and it is not going to change, whether others agree with it or not.

You keep saying "split the player base" without acknowledging either players who left the game, players who don't engage with overland and are therefore currently not even a part of that 'player base,' or how the player base is already subdivided amongst instances. What harm is there in players you never see, never interact with, and maybe don't even see in game, playing the game in an instance without you? Could be a trial, cyrodiil, dungeons, or even another instance of overland you weren't placed into.

I am not going to change my opinion or how I feel about this so let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Pretty much the end result of 99 percent of forum conversations.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The game was too hard for what I enjoy and had forced grouping so I left. When it changed after One Tamriel it became what I was looking for in a game so I came back. If this change hadn't been made I would have kept playing other games instead.

ZoS made a decision not to spilt the playerbase and I agree with them. This is my opinion and it is not going to change, whether others agree with it or not.

You keep saying "split the player base" without acknowledging either players who left the game, players who don't engage with overland and are therefore currently not even a part of that 'player base,' or how the player base is already subdivided amongst instances. What harm is there in players you never see, never interact with, and maybe don't even see in game, playing the game in an instance without you? Could be a trial, cyrodiil, dungeons, or even another instance of overland you weren't placed into.

I can't speak for SilverBride but I share the concern of a split playerbase. This is because I believe the number of people who are still engaging in the story vastly outnumber the people who aren't. I believe this because of what I know about industry trends with casual players in general, my own personal experience in this game, and the developers explicitly stating that the vast majority of people in this game engage in the story.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The game was too hard for what I enjoy and had forced grouping so I left. When it changed after One Tamriel it became what I was looking for in a game so I came back. If this change hadn't been made I would have kept playing other games instead.

ZoS made a decision not to spilt the playerbase and I agree with them. This is my opinion and it is not going to change, whether others agree with it or not.

You keep saying "split the player base" without acknowledging either players who left the game, players who don't engage with overland and are therefore currently not even a part of that 'player base,' or how the player base is already subdivided amongst instances. What harm is there in players you never see, never interact with, and maybe don't even see in game, playing the game in an instance without you? Could be a trial, cyrodiil, dungeons, or even another instance of overland you weren't placed into.

I can't speak for SilverBride but I share the concern of a split playerbase. This is because I believe the number of people who are still engaging in the story vastly outnumber the people who aren't. I believe this because of what I know about industry trends with casual players in general, my own personal experience in this game, and the developers explicitly stating that the vast majority of people in this game engage in the story.

Thank you, @spartaxoxo.

Snamyap

I stopped caring about harder overland content, it's just not going to happen. I do very much hope that there will be more instances in quest content, that can have an optional setting for a higher challenge. Making quest bosses in those instances equivalent to public dungeons bosses would help a ton with making the "world ending threat" a bit more believable. And stop with the immunity phases, they are horrible.

N00BxV1

I would also like more difficult and engaging overland content.

I started ESO when it first launched in 2014. I played for a month and then quit not because of veteran ranks/overland but purely because of the required "Game Time" a.k.a. sub. I just wasn't able to play much back then and didn't find the required sub worth it. But I did very much enjoy the nature of the veteran overland. It just felt like progression (to say the least) mattered more back then compared to these days.

I've now been playing ESO on-and-off since 2016. The overland content in ESO these days just bores me to death. When a new chapter/zone DLC drops I spend a day clearing it and then I go back to running dungeons etc. And the only time I go back to most overland is if I get a lead or something requiring it. I'm just not the target audience for the majority of this game because I also don't like the crafting, fishing, housing, antiquities, companions, card games, boring fetch quests... I play ESO because I like the combat system and that's pretty much it these days.

Also there's a reason why people always mention Elden Ring, and that should not be viewed negatively. There's no wonder why it won Game of the Year for 2022. It's definitely one of the best games that I've ever played. And it's not as difficult as most people think either, it's the most accessible Souls (FromSoftware) game ever made (I watched a streamer complete it using a dancepad, and then again using a gamepad with only 1 hand). It's just a freaking brilliant game and the best time I've had gaming in a long time. I could not put that game down for over 500 hours (200+ in the first month of its release). So ESO should be honored that people care about it enough to suggest trying to make it in any way like Elden Ring because that's a fantastic game.

CP5

spartaxoxo wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The game was too hard for what I enjoy and had forced grouping so I left. When it changed after One Tamriel it became what I was looking for in a game so I came back. If this change hadn't been made I would have kept playing other games instead.

ZoS made a decision not to spilt the playerbase and I agree with them. This is my opinion and it is not going to change, whether others agree with it or not.

You keep saying "split the player base" without acknowledging either players who left the game, players who don't engage with overland and are therefore currently not even a part of that 'player base,' or how the player base is already subdivided amongst instances. What harm is there in players you never see, never interact with, and maybe don't even see in game, playing the game in an instance without you? Could be a trial, cyrodiil, dungeons, or even another instance of overland you weren't placed into.

I can't speak for SilverBride but I share the concern of a split playerbase. This is because I believe the number of people who are still engaging in the story vastly outnumber the people who aren't. I believe this because of what I know about industry trends with casual players in general, my own personal experience in this game, and the developers explicitly stating that the vast majority of people in this game engage in the story.

If the players who are content with the current content is so massive, then what impact would an option being given to others have? I mean, you do the questing content enough as is, given your previous post, but do you at least understand many players aren't engaged with the world as it is because it bores them away? There is nothing lost for the average player, if those who are doing nothing as is instead choose to do something else, and if this was done through instancing, guess what? The spots those AFK players were taking up would be filled with more players actually looking to do the content of the world, increasing player to player interactions, because grouping players with shared interest together does that.

Let's say, ZOS was to add story mode dungeons? Single player, no dungeon finder queue, just for players who want to do the dungeons at their own pace, without combat impacting their ability to enjoy it. Would that be good? Or would it be both unfair to cater to their 'play style', and would it not 'divide the player base' by taking people out of the normal dungeon finder queue (ignoring the players who don't use the dungeon finder who would gladly take this option if it was given)? Should this option be added, or should it be shot down for the same reasons this topic is being countered with?

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The game was too hard for what I enjoy and had forced grouping so I left. When it changed after One Tamriel it became what I was looking for in a game so I came back. If this change hadn't been made I would have kept playing other games instead.

ZoS made a decision not to spilt the playerbase and I agree with them. This is my opinion and it is not going to change, whether others agree with it or not.

You keep saying "split the player base" without acknowledging either players who left the game, players who don't engage with overland and are therefore currently not even a part of that 'player base,' or how the player base is already subdivided amongst instances. What harm is there in players you never see, never interact with, and maybe don't even see in game, playing the game in an instance without you? Could be a trial, cyrodiil, dungeons, or even another instance of overland you weren't placed into.

I am not going to change my opinion or how I feel about this so let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Your opinion does not regard those who you don't even see in game, who you don't engage with, and who you don't notice leaving. It is easy for you to write off their concerns, but they are just as much a part of the player base as your friends, so why does it matter if players who you never see are either, in instances of trials, not engaging with you, in instances of overland, not engaging with you, or out of the game entirely, not engaging with you? It's all the same in the end, but the difference is you are actively downplaying the concerns of others, playing it off as if they don't matter.

SilverBride

N00BxV1 wrote: »

So ESO should be honored that people care about it enough to suggest trying to make it in any way like Elden Ring because that's a fantastic game.

ESO is already a fantastic game and it does not need to be changed into something else.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

lIf the players who are content with the current content is so massive, then what impact would an option being given to others have? I mean, you do the questing content enough as is, given your previous post, but do you at least understand many players aren't engaged with the world as it is because it bores them away?

Just because we're doing the current content doesn't mean that we would continue to do that content if a harder difficulty was present. I know for a fact I would use whatever difficulty option they give us. And if that means that I was no longer present to help out on the normal overland map, then that's how that goes.

I have spoken to this before but I am a player that enjoys both challenging content and easy content. I have played both hard games like Bloodborne and Dark Souls and beyond easy games like Tales of the Borderlands and The Wolf Among Us. I know and have met plenty of others like myself too, and given that the developers state the vast majority of players engage in the story content I'd best most players who do hard content engage in both.

The people I am concerned with leaving normal overland for the vet one are the people who ARE engaged in overland. And my concern isn't for highly populated zones. Those can lose people just fine.

But, those zones aren't the only ones that exist. There are single instance, low population zones, that barely function as is. I have already seen a new player quit this "dead' game because they couldn't find help for a world boss in that zone. He made an angry rant in world chat and luckily some of us jumped up to help him. But he had been there for a long time and got frustrated because the zone barely had people.

This was late night on a zone already low population. Why would I want to exacerbate that type of problem when I firmly believe this issue, which I do acknowledge and consider important not just for others but for myself, can be solved without pulling players out of the overland content?

This is why I support stuff like an adventure zone, challenge banners, LOTRO style debuff sliders, poison champion tree, etc. Any solution that doesn't have people working in two separate versions of the same quest, totally separated from each other.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

Let's say, ZOS was to add story mode dungeons? Single player, no dungeon finder queue, just for players who want to do the dungeons at their own pace, without combat impacting their ability to enjoy it. Would that be good? Or would it be both unfair to cater to their 'play style', and would it not 'divide the player base' by taking people out of the normal dungeon finder queue (ignoring the players who don't use the dungeon finder who would gladly take this option if it was given)? Should this option be added, or should it be shot down for the same reasons this topic is being countered with?

I have never stated that it would be unfair to cater to the play style of vets. That is not my stance.

I think it's very important developers cater to vet players on this and that different content SHOULD cater to different players sometimes.

In the case of a story mode, I support it because there is no viable alternative solution available to actually being able to hear the story that I have heard thus far. Hopefully the new grouping tool will change my mind on that.

In the case of normal dungeons being removed from the vet dungeon queue so people can do the random dungeon without having to do DLC?

I strongly disagree with doing that as well. For the same exact reason that I disagree with a separate vet overland. I don't want the playerbase split to an unhealthy degree. Vet players deserve content that functions and has enough people doing it to ensure they can get groups just as much as casual players. In the case of casual players, that means they need to do DLC if they want the rewards. In the case of vet, that means they need to do overland with newbies.

I support a LOTRO style slider with increased gold and exp gain and achievements for difficulty increase. I have not heard a solution I can support for the dungeons.

AScarlato

How many people really need help on the normal overland map outside group bosses?

spartaxoxo

AScarlato wrote: »

How many people really need help on the normal overland map outside group bosses?

I've seen plenty ask for help at world events, world bosses, and the newer public dungeons. Regardless, I can't come to their aid on even the bosses if I'm on an entirely different map. Right now most of the help I offer is when I was playing in Overland anyway and I happen to see someone who needs it. It doesn't happen every play session but it happens enough I do worry about a split.

Kendaric

AScarlato wrote: »

How many people really need help on the normal overland map outside group bosses?

Quite a lot actually.

You've got to remember that not everyone has access to CP, which affects the difficulty to some degree, others may need help because of their disabilities, etc.
Just because you find overland content easy, doesn't mean it is the same for everyone.