Overland Content Feedback Thread

casparian

Anifaas wrote: »

Although overland in it's current easy state will never be immersive for me, I don't think anymore it's necessary to change it's difficulty as we got now EA to test our skill and enjoy meaningful combat encounters.

I just want to point out that many of the comments in this thread asking for an overland difficulty option weren't doing so because there weren't meaningful combat encounters in the game -- obviously there always have been, that was never the issue -- but because we want to play the quests in a way that feels engaging and immersive to us. EA is great, but it doesn't do anything at all to solve that problem. It's a completely different system and does precisely zero to alleviate the issue (same with Bastion Nymics, though ZOS seems to think they have something to do with overland difficulty).

Braffin

casparian wrote: »

Anifaas wrote: »

Although overland in it's current easy state will never be immersive for me, I don't think anymore it's necessary to change it's difficulty as we got now EA to test our skill and enjoy meaningful combat encounters.

I just want to point out that many of the comments in this thread asking for an overland difficulty option weren't doing so because there weren't meaningful combat encounters in the game -- obviously there always have been, that was never the issue -- but because we want to play the quests in a way that feels engaging and immersive to us. EA is great, but it doesn't do anything at all to solve that problem. It's a completely different system and does precisely zero to alleviate the issue (same with Bastion Nymics, though ZOS seems to think they have something to do with overland difficulty).

Yeah, I get that. That's why I wrote, that overland in it's current state will never be immersive for me.

That's not optimal, I know. But at least the fixation on adding only braindead easy content finally came to an end and zos is at least trying to cater to a broader audience instead of the very few and very loud around this forums.

So, I don't say, that I'm fine with current overland content (I'm not) and I surely wouldn't oppose veteran overland if zos some day decides to do it. But the issues I had with this game were significantly reduced thanks to the introduction of EA (despite the childhood illnesses one expects when new content is introduced).

I simply wasn't pleased with the amount of meaningful content beforehand, outside of vet trials there wasn't much to do combat-wise imo. The latter can't be played anytime tho, as some RL-coordination of 12 people is necessary to run them reasonably.

The immersion-problem during questing? I completely agree with you in that regard. I simply have no hope, that zos will ever listen. For immersive stories my money is spent elsewhere.

PS: I think you somehow got your citation wrong.

YffresTrill

Braffin wrote: »

Although overland in it's current easy state will never be immersive for me, I don't think anymore it's necessary to change it's difficulty as we got now EA to test our skill and enjoy meaningful combat encounters.

I have seen this sentiment expressed a few times on these forums and while I am happy that EA is a satisfying alternative to a higher-difficulty (strictly optional!) overland for some, I cannot agree with this.

A repetitive arena/dungeon is entirely different content from immersively difficult overland. Personally, I can barely stomach EA but would love difficult overland (again, only if it is optional).

Braffin

ComradeBiscuit wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Although overland in it's current easy state will never be immersive for me, I don't think anymore it's necessary to change it's difficulty as we got now EA to test our skill and enjoy meaningful combat encounters.

I have seen this sentiment expressed a few times on these forums and while I am happy that EA is a satisfying alternative to a higher-difficulty (strictly optional!) overland for some, I cannot agree with this.

A repetitive arena/dungeon is entirely different content from immersively difficult overland. Personally, I can barely stomach EA but would love difficult overland (again, only if it is optional).

Honestly, you have my sympathies.

Personally I almost entirely stopped doing any story quests in eso due to lack of immersion. But the game as a whole was somewhat rescued at least for me by adding EA.

I hope your concers will also be adressed somehow in the future.

On a sidenote: It's very well possible, that the way how difficulty is dynamically scaled in EA is foreshadowing future changes to overland difficulty. Should be easily adaptable for overland imo and the anyways nonsensical "argument" regarding development resources is finally out of the way.

SilverBride

Braffin wrote: »

I simply have no hope, that zos will ever listen.

ZoS has listened.

They created Bastion Nymics, which although they can be done in a group of 4 they can also be solo'd or duo'd. And now the EA is specifically for solo or duo players. These address some of the feedback in this thread that all challenging content was for groups and some players wanted a challenging solo experience. These may not be exactly how these players wanted a change implemented but they have been successful as far as a lot of players stating they enjoy them.

As far as overland itself, DLC World Bosses are noticeably more difficult than the base game zones, and replacing dolmens with much more difficult content such as Harrowstorms and Vents etc. has raised the difficulty of overland. But the trash mobs and quests and story give us some relaxing choices which a lot of us enjoy. It would be detrimental to take away our one relaxing low challenge option.

(A separate veteran overland would separate the playerbase which they do not wish to do.)

Braffin

SilverBride wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

I simply have no hope, that zos will ever listen.

ZoS has listened.

They created Bastion Nymics, which although they can be done in a group of 4 they can also be solo'd or duo'd. And now the EA is specifically for solo or duo players. These address some of the feedback in this thread that all challenging content was for groups and some players wanted a challenging solo experience. These may not be exactly how these players wanted a change implemented but they have been successful as far as a lot of players stating they enjoy them.

As far as overland itself, DLC World Bosses are noticeably more difficult than the base game zones, and replacing dolmens with much more difficult content such as Harrowstorms and Vents etc. has raised the difficulty of overland. But the trash mobs and quests and story give us some relaxing choices which a lot of us enjoy. It would be detrimental to take away our one relaxing low challenge option.

(A separate veteran overland would separate the playerbase which they do not wish to do.)

As said before, personally I'm fine with the current path they're obviously taking and I agree, that the demands regarding more meaningful content combat-wise were adressed.

But the concerns regarding immersive questing expressed by players like @casparian or @ComradeBiscuit weren't adressed yet.

SilverBride

Braffin wrote: »

But the concerns regarding immersive questing expressed by players like @casparian or @ComradeBiscuit weren't adressed yet.

Post #3053 on page 102 of this thread states that "there are no current plans for changing the structure of overland content". This may not be the answer that some were hoping for but it is an answer.

Not every player in every game is going to be happy with every feature, so players participate in the parts they enjoy. It would require multiple versions of everything to make every player completely happy with every feature, and this is just not feasible.

Braffin

SilverBride wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

But the concerns regarding immersive questing expressed by players like @casparian or @ComradeBiscuit weren't adressed yet.

Not every player in every game is going to be happy with every feature, so players participate in the parts they enjoy. It would require multiple versions of everything to make every player completely happy with every feature, and this is just not feasible.

Yes, that's agreeable and quite self-evident.

Don't get me wrong, I very well see what zos is trying to do with the implementation of EA, that's why I originally posted:

Although overland in it's current easy state will never be immersive for me, I don't think anymore it's necessary to change it's difficulty as we got now EA to test our skill and enjoy meaningful combat encounters.

That's how I see things atm.

That doesn't mean tho, that I'm forced to find overland questing immersive. I don't.

While that's not a big issue for me, I respect it's something dealbreaking for others.

SilverBride

I hope more players will give the Endless Archive a chance. I realize that not everyone will enjoy it but I think ZoS has done a great job in listening to the feedback in this thread and creating some great alternatives.

Kendaric

Braffin wrote: »

But the concerns regarding immersive questing expressed by players like @casparian or @ComradeBiscuit weren't adressed yet.

Let's face it, questing/story can't really be immersive in a MMORPG. Especially not when the story has the player battle a Daedric Prince on his homeplane and win (granted, we were powered up by the Amulet of Kings). Dying to mudcrabs/wolves/bandits/lesser Daedra would feel just... weird.

Sure, certain monsters like giants, trolls, ogres, bears, mammoths and some of the daedric foes could use a upgrade. But apart from that... the only thing would be reworking the "baby buff" and preventing players from assigning CP under level 50.

Or they could introduce a difficulty slider like LotRO. But that is wishful thinking at best...

spartaxoxo

Kendaric wrote: »

Or they could introduce a difficulty slider like LotRO. But that is wishful thinking at best...

I still think this is the best option. I don't think that it's going to happen at this point as they seem determined to make it so that questing is tutorial content, but I think that it is the most in-line with how difficulty has been done in the TES series and most balanced for the needs of both the game and vet players.

Braffin

Kendaric wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

But the concerns regarding immersive questing expressed by players like @casparian or @ComradeBiscuit weren't adressed yet.

Let's face it, questing/story can't really be immersive in a MMORPG.

Ah, that's generalizing a bit much. I enjoyed the storytelling of swtor very much and played that game mainly because of the quite good immersion. But all in all I would agree: There is of course a tradeoff in MMOs, which is caused by the shared world we play in, so some things simply aren't possible.

I also doubt, that a higher difficulty would solve my personal immersion issues with questing in eso tbh. Bethesda never managed to meet my expectations, when it comes to storytelling, depth of characters and such things, neither in eso nor in any single-player title. They excel in worldbuilding and created a rich, interesting and in many regards unique lore, but if the actual quest-dialogues were written by another company it were most probably an improvement imo.

So I never had any high expectations in that regard. I'm here for the lore and the combat.

I'm very well aware tho, that taste is something completely subjective and others are attracted by the way the story is told.

Damico

I sure would like to come back to this game and play through some quest lines with engaging combat.

Dahveed

SilverBride wrote: »

(A separate veteran overland would separate the playerbase which they do not wish to do.)

I know this is an old argument but I have to chime in again to disagree.

For a solo player like me, I am already "split" from the "player base", whatever that is.

I have played this game on and off (mostly off) since a year or so after they first released ESO, and I can count on one hand the number of times I have interacted with said "player base" (whatever that is) in all those years.

I don't join groups. I don't talk to any guild. I barely go to the guild stores (everything there is useless to me because everything is so easy, and nothing is worth upgrading or farming unless it's cosmetc).

When I'm trying to solo a world boss and another player joins the fight, 9 times out of 10 it is just irritating because it's the only challenging solo thing I can do in the overland... and that player (or those players) just ruined my fun with their OP min-maxed build to wreck my boss fight in 25 seconds.


More generally, it's time for people to stop trying to convince us (and perhaps themselves?) that this isn't possible.

Other MMOs are doing it.

For literally a decade they said it couldn't be done in WoW, and now they have WoW classic servers back with WoW hardcore as well... and they are talking about bringing in WoW "solo" hardcore servers as well with no auction house etc.

Lord of the Rings online added their adventure mode. I don't play that game but I've checked out some videos and it has apparently been a MASSIVE success.

I've heard talk about a couple other MMOs doing it as well (Rift I think?), but I don't play those games so I can't say.

For years and years (and YEARS) you guys have been telling us it's not possible, and "you don't want that" has now become an infamous online quote from that one condescending WoW dev.


They CAN do this, they CAN make it work, and I guarantee you that a lot of players will play it and like it... just like the endless archive that a lot of people said they wouldn't like, but now do.

And no, it won't "split" me from the player base. I am already thoroughly, completely, and irrevocably "split".

Indeed, they only possible thing that may one day CONNECT me to the "player base" is more difficult content in the overworld which FORCES me to stop playing solo and mashing my buttons.

Shor's Bones, I just played a delve and it was truly pathetic. I'd rather there was no combat or "enemies" at all to annoy me and slow down my exploration, rather than truly idiotic and weak NPCs that I just run through in 1.8 seconds. Either get out of my way so I can follow the story, or make it an interesting threat that turns it into an actual video game.



Whoops, sorry, this turned into a mini rant again, lol.



TLDR You're not going to "split" any players. We now have real world examples lighting the way for ZoS to do something.

(Please ZoS; pretty please, with a cherry on top. Do something.)

SilverBride

Dahveed wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

(A separate veteran overland would separate the playerbase which they do not wish to do.)

I know this is an old argument but I have to chime in again to disagree.

That is fine if you disagree, but splitting the player base is something they have said they do not wish to do.

Dahveed

SilverBride wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

(A separate veteran overland would separate the playerbase which they do not wish to do.)

I know this is an old argument but I have to chime in again to disagree.

That is fine if you disagree, but splitting the player base is something they have said they do not wish to do.

It's our job to change their minds.

Like I said, for years the WoW people said they didn't want to do Classic/Hardcore/etc until the fans basically forced their hands. They finally did it and J. Allen Brack (the infamous "you think you do but you don't" guy) had to eat his hat.

Just because "they" say so doesn't mean it's set in stone for eternity and they can't change their minds. Just like the "you think you do but you don't" guy did.

I know it's a long shot but I have to hold on to a tiny ray of hope that one day they will look at what's happening in MMO culture and change their tune. And maybe (just maybe?) my one tiny voice will join with others and slowly mount into a larger chorus.

SilverBride

Dahveed wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

(A separate veteran overland would separate the playerbase which they do not wish to do.)

I know this is an old argument but I have to chime in again to disagree.

That is fine if you disagree, but splitting the player base is something they have said they do not wish to do.

It's our job to change their minds.

I agree with them. I think it would be a very bad idea to split overland into normal and veteran versions.

There is a lot of challenging content, and now Bastion Nymics and The Endless Archive offer even more with the EA being geared to solo or duo play. Overland is the last and only relaxing content that involves combat. It should remain that way.

Dahveed

SilverBride wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

(A separate veteran overland would separate the playerbase which they do not wish to do.)

I know this is an old argument but I have to chime in again to disagree.

That is fine if you disagree, but splitting the player base is something they have said they do not wish to do.

It's our job to change their minds.

I agree with them. I think it would be a very bad idea to split overland into normal and veteran versions.

There is a lot of challenging content, and now Bastion Nymics and The Endless Archive offer even more with the EA being geared to solo or duo play. Overland is the last and only relaxing content that involves combat. It should remain that way.

It would remain that way for everyone.

Unless you wanted to play the (100% optional) hard mode.

We both win!

Dahveed

SilverBride wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

(A separate veteran overland would separate the playerbase which they do not wish to do.)

I know this is an old argument but I have to chime in again to disagree.

That is fine if you disagree, but splitting the player base is something they have said they do not wish to do.

It's our job to change their minds.

I agree with them. I think it would be a very bad idea to split overland into normal and veteran versions.

There is a lot of challenging content, and now Bastion Nymics and The Endless Archive offer even more with the EA being geared to solo or duo play. Overland is the last and only relaxing content that involves combat. It should remain that way.

I should also mention that I am WAY behind on content. I'm currently in Summerset doing the quests... I have a LOT of catching up to do. So I want to slowly catch up by playing the quests, following the story, and knowing what's going on. Not just jumping into some random dungeon or endless, repetitive "endless archive" event to get some trinkets. I want to be able to have more challenge and immersion as I play through the story quests.

And it's party the reason I'm lurking in this forum thread again, because every time I come back to catch up on the story content (a huge part of Elder Scrolls games), I am reminded of how deeply unsatisfying it is, and what massive potential they have for the greatest game on the planet.

But this part of the content isn't even a "game". It's a point-and-click adventure. If they turned it into an actual game (i.e. give me the option to turn it into an actual game with a vet mod or whatever) then I would probably never leave my couch for the next five years.

SilverBride

Dahveed wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I agree with them. I think it would be a very bad idea to split overland into normal and veteran versions.

There is a lot of challenging content, and now Bastion Nymics and The Endless Archive offer even more with the EA being geared to solo or duo play. Overland is the last and only relaxing content that involves combat. It should remain that way.

It would remain that way for everyone.

Unless you wanted to play the (100% optional) hard mode.

We both win!

I disagree. But I don't see it ever happening anyway.

Dahveed

SilverBride wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I agree with them. I think it would be a very bad idea to split overland into normal and veteran versions.

There is a lot of challenging content, and now Bastion Nymics and The Endless Archive offer even more with the EA being geared to solo or duo play. Overland is the last and only relaxing content that involves combat. It should remain that way.

It would remain that way for everyone.

Unless you wanted to play the (100% optional) hard mode.

We both win!

I disagree. But I don't see it ever happening anyway.

I share your pessimism about the likelihood of it "happening", but what baffles me is the persistent belief that adding this optional mode would in any way harm your gameplay experience. (i.e. you don't "win".)

Especially now that we have the incontrovertible real life proof in other games. Other mmos which have done similar things have not only NOT "split the base" (or whatever counter-arguments people threw up as roadblocks) but have, on the contrary, thrived.

The most obvious and famous example is WoW which brought back classic, which knocked it out of the park in pretty much every metric imaginable, and the main "retail" version of WoW didn't even budge.

But *shrug*, we're never going to convince each other, so no sense going on I guess. I just find the whole conversation insanely frustrating. If I play baseball in San Francisco, that doesn't preclude your enjoyment of hockey in Finland. If I play my solo "hard mode" content, it won't detract from your enjoyment of "story mode" in your corner of the world.

SilverBride

Edit: I see no point in keeping this going so let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Dahveed

SilverBride wrote: »

Edit: I see no point in keeping this going so let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I understand... and please don't take this the wrong way. (I'm not trying to bait you or anything... if I even understand what that word means...)

[snip]

For example, I don't do trials. Like ever. So if someone makes suggestions about trials... why would I insert my opinions into the thing they are suggesting, telling them "no" over and over again, when it's something I wouldn't even play? Or affect me in any way.

If people got a new difficulty tier for trials, how would that "split" me from that player base? I don't do trials at all, so I would never interact with those ppl anyways. It doesn't affect me, so why would I care?

With that frame of mind, try to put yourself in my position: I'm someone who plays the game completely solo, all the time. I never interact with anyone. EVER. How would putting me in a separate difficulty of overland affect you in any way? Or "split" me from the other players?

I am already "split" from everyone. Even moreso when I quit the game. As have at least 4 other people I know to whom I've tried to show this game, who got bored because of how faceroll everything is. ( When players quit the game out of extreme boredom, they are definitively split from the player base, forever.)


If you don't want to continue this discussion I understand, I don't want to kick the hornet's nest or "bait" you (or whatever). It just seems that you are, shall we say... "passionate" about blocking this (potential, theoretical) feature from the game.

Why?

Peace.

EDIT - One more quick note for context. I'm asking this, because I'm genuinely curious about the mindset of people on your "side" of this argument. I've seen other people such as yourself in other overland suggestion forums (similar to this thread) who are extremely argumentative, sometimes downright rude about saying "no, no, no, no, NO!!!" when people ask for a separate overland difficulty. (You have been very respectful) I just don't understand why you are all so... adamant. Perhaps you could help me understand your point of view, and your... persistence?

[edited for baiting]

spartaxoxo

I share SilverBride (and the developers) concern about splitting up the players. I can only speak for myself but...

Splitting the playerbase isn't about what a given individual would do, but about what people would do in aggregate. Currently, the vast majority of the playerbase engages in Overland content. That's something we know because the devs flat out told us that the vast majority of players are into the story and exploration side of the game.

If there were two different modes, the people in overland would naturally divide themselves. For some zones, that wouldn't be a big deal. For others, it would be because they are already zones that often only have a single instance.

In those zones, players would not be able to find help as easily with difficult content such as world bosses. In addition, the world would seem less populated with less people running around even if the help isn't needed. It's important that new and casual players can see a populated world and get help when they need it, from people just running around. I think that's important for the health of the game.

The split playerbase concern isn't about people who currently refuse to use overland, it's about the vast majority of the playerbase that does.

This is why I personally support the way that Lord of the Rings Online does it. They have a togglable slider that places a debuff on players, so that they can remain together but still provide a better experience for those who seek a greater challenge.

Dahveed

spartaxoxo wrote: »

This is why I personally support the way that Lord of the Rings Online does it. They have a togglable slider that places a debuff on players, so that they can remain together but still provide a better experience for those who seek a greater challenge.

I get your concerns. I really do.

But what makes me scratch my head is that when I (or others) suggest the slider (the debuff slider... I had this idea literally 6 or 7 years ago in the WoW forums), everyone starts collectively yelling at me. THAT is what I don't get. Why would anyone be against that specific debuff slider, that is totally optional? And why are so many people SO vehemently against it... to the point where they will post multiple times per page, per thread, over and over again for hours, days, MONTHS going onto these threads and saying "No! We can't! We won't!!!"

If I have a personal debuff on me (and only me, which I can toggle), then I'm not interfering with anyone at all. I can still (theoretically) respond to help requests, chat it up, run around in the world so people can see me (giving the impression of a populated MMO), and still participate in all group content in the overworld.

I'm so glad that Lotro did that, even if I don't play that game. Just to prove that it can be done. (Apparently it is quite successful, but I can't confirm this 100%.)

If they did this ESO-style, they could easily just make the "reward" for this option some cosmetic knick-knacks, a title, an achievement, something not gameplay-related but purely cosmetic.

Personally I would vote for an in-game quest chain you could do, kind of like for Lycantrhopy. You get bitten and then complete a short introductory quest, then "voila" you're a WW. Similarly, there could be some kind of quest, a bargain with Clavicus Vile perhaps, where you get cursed. Or perhaps even just a costume or something, with ESO flavour.

But every time I suggest this (or someone else does), a certain percentage of players pile on me saying "no no non nooooooo" that's UNPOSSIBLE!!! Don't you know this is an MMO????"

Right, because no MMOs have ever done new things before. Trying new things is impossible, apparently.

Until they aren't. Thanks Lotro, thanks WoW Classic, thank you WoW Hardcore, and thanks to other MMOs who HAVE done this successfully to show the naysayers that it CAN be done.

This gives me at least a tiny spark of hope that perhaps ESO devs will *eventually* one day perhaps try something... however unlikely it may be.

spartaxoxo

Dahveed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

This is why I personally support the way that Lord of the Rings Online does it. They have a togglable slider that places a debuff on players, so that they can remain together but still provide a better experience for those who seek a greater challenge.

I get your concerns. I really do.

But what makes me scratch my head is that when I (or others) suggest the slider (the debuff slider... I had this idea literally 6 or 7 years ago in the WoW forums), everyone starts collectively yelling at me. THAT is what I don't get. Why would anyone be against that specific debuff slider, that is totally optional? And why are so many people SO vehemently against it... to the point where they will post multiple times per page, per thread, over and over again for hours, days, MONTHS going onto these threads and saying "No! We can't! We won't!!!"

I support a slider, so this is not my opinion. But some people in this thread in the past have mentioned not wanting a slider because knowing they have a slider turned on would ruin their personal immersion. Or because they want everyone around them to be on hard mode too because they're afraid all the mobs will always be dead before they get do anything if they aren't. I don't agree with those concerns, but that's what I remember being expressed in earlier pages of this thread.

I should note, the person you made your initial reply to DOES support a slider.

SilverBride wrote: »

I fully support debuff foods or sliders and challenge banners for quest bosses because these affect no one but the player using them. The only things I don't support are increased difficulty for everyone and a separate veteran overland.

Dahveed

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I should note, the person you made your initial reply to DOES support a slider.

My bad, I didn't see that post.

Kendaric

Most of us "casuals" actually support a slider, since it doesn't require splitting the playerbase. Funnily the main people against it are the ones who absolutely want a vet overland.

But let's face it, a vet overland wouldn't really help. You can't turn off experience with playing the game, knowledge of mechanics, etc. So a vet overland, if it got made, would either be obsolete from the beginning or require reworking basically every mob in the game to have new mechanics (or even any mechanics at all) in the vet mode in addition to more health and more damage.
It's no trivial task, no matter how much certain people want it. And even with new mechanics, that mode would soon be obsolete and the cycle of "wanting the game to be harder" would start again.

So yes, a slider like LotRO has would be the better solution.

RaptorRodeoGod

Have they mentioned why they're adverse on an optional slider/PvE Battle Spirit? It's clear they don't like the idea because they haven't done anything regarding it. This is too long of a thread to sift through lol.

Kendaric

RaptorRodeoGod wrote: »

Have they mentioned why they're adverse on an optional slider/PvE Battle Spirit? It's clear they don't like the idea because they haven't done anything regarding it. This is too long of a thread to sift through lol.

No, their only comment regarding anything related to challenging/difficult overland was that they have no plans to change it and don't want to split the player base. Well... and that Bastion Nymic is meant as one of their answers to address the matter.

They didn't mention anything regarding a slider as a solution at all.