Overland Content Feedback Thread

disky

Braffin wrote: »

Rewards could be the same or slightly better (blue/purple drops instead of green), but doesn't really matter for me personally.

I couldn't care less about increasing rewards, honestly. I follow the logic but I think that it's a big friction point for anyone who doesn't want overland to change, and it doesn't really matter that much anyway. If it's going to happen it has to be uncontroversial. What matters most is that the overland game is a snorefest and I want to have fun.

RaptorRodeoGod

SilverBride wrote: »

KapiteinBoterham wrote: »

If the next 10 pages of this thread would only be filled with "please just add a little HP to story/quest bosses" or "i wouldn't mind a little extra HP on the bosses" it might actually get implemented by the devs.

That is something I do not want to see happen and will continue to fight against.

My view is protecting many other players from having overland... the ONLY part of the game that is not tailored to be a challenge... from becoming so difficult that many will no longer be able to succeed.

KapiteinBoterham wrote: »

If you think the solution i have offered is not a good solution please reply with a good reason or argument and maybe we can find an even better middleground!

Forcing difficulty on all players, many of whom do not want more difficulty, would be harmful to the general playerbase.


This topic has already been given an answer in the quote below and by the introduction of Bastion Nymics which were stated to be one answer to overland difficulty. This is our answer.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi All, as many of you have noted already from Rich's interview, there are no current plans for changing the structure of overland content. It is something we will continue to look at, so constructive feedback is always appreciated.

The purpose of this thread is to collect constructive feedback so if there is an opportunity to make changes, we have feedback from players to possibly incorporate. However, if the conversation continues to be users arguing with each other, we will lock this thread. We understand not everyone will agree with the statement. However, you can disagree and voice it without pushing the buttons of other forum users.

As always, please follow the community guidelines.

IKYMI: 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."

I 100% agree with you up until the last paragraph. However, adding new/a new type of content, that is designed to be harder, does not satisfy those that want to play the stories that an overwhelming majority of content is.

I would love to see a ZOS explanation as to whether they think just adding new content that is supposed to be difficult has worked in the past, and why they refuse to introduce a dynamic way for players to scale the difficulty of themselves to overland, or overland to themselves, which would, in theory, satisfy everyone.

RaptorRodeoGod

Just to reiterate what I think the problem is, I think that the difficulty of overland is perfect for those it's already made for, and too easy for those that think it is easy. I think that addressing that problem by making brand new types of content, instead of making some kind of dynamic way to make existing content harder for those that want it, does not satisfy the complaint that overland is to easy. Because it still is, there's just a different section thats now harder.

There are enough different types of content that are more difficult than overland; none of them fix the fact that overland content, questing specifically, is too easy for a large subset of players.

A solution to this problem needs to be made.

Braffin

jbarnhill1b14_ESO wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Rewards could be the same or slightly better (blue/purple drops instead of green), but doesn't really matter for me personally.

I couldn't care less about increasing rewards, honestly. I follow the logic but I think that it's a big friction point for anyone who doesn't want overland to change, and it doesn't really matter that much anyway. If it's going to happen it has to be uncontroversial. What matters most is that the overland game is a snorefest and I want to have fun.

Rewards don't matter for me either, so I really don't care about them. A rewarding and immersive gaming experience is what I'm after.

That said, I don't think the frictions you mentioned (and I agree, they would definitely happen) are viable concerns, because nothing is taken away from anyone by handing out blue/purple quality gear.

Greed, FOMO and envy aren't things which need to be taken into consideration and I couldn't care less for people driven by this flaws.

I also don't think it's possible to change anything without it being controversial. As can be seen very clearly in this thread, some people are clearly beyond reason and will oppose every change with framed "arguments".

They are a neglectible minority tho, so I simply don't care. Change is inevitable.

TaSheen

"negligible minority". Hmm. Well, perhaps you have better numbers than others do? Perhaps somehow you are getting numbers from ZOS?

IF (big if there) ZOS found those of us who aren't happy with major changes to overland "a negligible minority", do you not believe that ZOS would have already embraced the "harder overland NOW for EVERYONE!" change?

Perhaps they will validate you and yours eventually....

Braffin

TaSheen wrote: »

"negligible minority". Hmm. Well, perhaps you have better numbers than others do? Perhaps somehow you are getting numbers from ZOS?

IF (big if there) ZOS found those of us who aren't happy with major changes to overland "a negligible minority", do you not believe that ZOS would have already embraced the "harder overland NOW for EVERYONE!" change?

Perhaps they will validate you and yours eventually....

You misunderstood my statement. I said people, which are opposing an optional increase in difficulty are a neglectible minority.

Braffin

TaSheen wrote: »

I don't see where you actually posted that. If it was supposed to be "understood", I obviously didn't see it.

So far, you seem to have been totally in favor of "optional". However.... someone reading the post in question would be hard put to read "optional" into it.

This is a "point of order" I bring up because of a poster who (after mealy-mouthing "oh yes optional" earlier in the thread) has now showed up insisting on across the board increases in overland difficulty. So now it's becoming an issue with "intent" and how that intent is stated.

At some point, I believe that the devs will pick and choose what they enact. And every post which "seems" to agree with more difficulty in overland is what they will select. I don't find that a really optimal outcome, personally. And yes, I'm well aware that I AM a minority.

It will be what it will be.

Yeah, I didn't mention it specifically because I answered another poster and it was clear in that context imo.

Do you add "but I don't mind increased optional difficulty for anyone interested" to your various "I don't want more difficult overland"?

Maybe we should do so. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

On a sidenote: I will never vote for a mandatory increase of overland difficulty (because that were harmful to the game imo) and think I'm quite consistent about difficulty in general, as I also support solo dungeons (with adjusted rewards of course) for example.

spartaxoxo

Braffin wrote: »

You misunderstood my statement. I said people, which are opposing an optional increase in difficulty are a neglectible minority.

Yeah. I think even the people who don't want overland to be any harder are mostly okay with something optional. Opinions vary on what that should look like (e.g. sliders, separate instances, challenge banners, etc) but most people have at least one optional difficulty thing they'd be okay with for others.

TaSheen

Braffin wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

I don't see where you actually posted that. If it was supposed to be "understood", I obviously didn't see it.

So far, you seem to have been totally in favor of "optional". However.... someone reading the post in question would be hard put to read "optional" into it.

This is a "point of order" I bring up because of a poster who (after mealy-mouthing "oh yes optional" earlier in the thread) has now showed up insisting on across the board increases in overland difficulty. So now it's becoming an issue with "intent" and how that intent is stated.

At some point, I believe that the devs will pick and choose what they enact. And every post which "seems" to agree with more difficulty in overland is what they will select. I don't find that a really optimal outcome, personally. And yes, I'm well aware that I AM a minority.

It will be what it will be.

Yeah, I didn't mention it specifically because I answered another poster and it was clear in that context imo.

Do you add "but I don't mind increased optional difficulty for anyone interested" to your various "I don't want more difficult overland"?

Maybe we should do so. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

On a sidenote: I will never vote for a mandatory increase of overland difficulty (because that were harmful to the game imo) and think I'm quite consistent about difficulty in general, as I also support solo dungeons (with adjusted rewards of course) for example.

Eh, I edited because.... well, I'm having a hard time right now. And that's all I want to say about that.

I do try to add "optional is fine with me". I probably don't always do that when I might even think I have. Sorry I jumped on you.

Braffin

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

You misunderstood my statement. I said people, which are opposing an optional increase in difficulty are a neglectible minority.

Yeah. I think even the people who don't want overland to be any harder are mostly okay with something optional. Opinions vary on what that should look like (e.g. sliders, separate instances, challenge banners, etc) but most people have at least one optional difficulty thing they'd be okay with for others.

That's also my impression. I'm quite sure most of us want the same thing: an enjoyable gaming experience in overland for as many players as possible. The way to achieve this goal is by adding options.

There are a few outliners, like the example with mandatory HP increase lately or people talking about "development resources" (which they have no idea of if they aren't employed by zos on management level) to argue against options.

All in all they are very rare, even in this thread. That's why I think this opinions are neglectible.

Regarding the method of implementing these options I have no real preferences tbh, although I preferred separate instances in the past. The only thing important is, that I don't have to waive gear/cp/skillpoints/food and whatnot to have the same fun in overland as for example newer players. Because that's against anything a Rpg is promising it's audience.

disky

RaptorRodeoGod wrote: »

That said, I don't think the frictions you mentioned (and I agree, they would definitely happen) are viable concerns, because nothing is taken away from anyone by handing out blue/purple quality gear.

My point is that something uncontroversial is more likely to be implemented and I want a change to be implemented. The more concerns people have, no matter how small, add up and cause people to press the company to avoid doing the thing we want them to do. If it means we get the thing, I'm more than willing to give up hypothetical improved loot drops.

SilverBride

jbarnhill1b14_ESO wrote: »

My point is that something uncontroversial is more likely to be implemented and I want a change to be implemented.

Any mandatory increase in difficulty is controversial.

Braffin

SilverBride wrote: »

jbarnhill1b14_ESO wrote: »

My point is that something uncontroversial is more likely to be implemented and I want a change to be implemented.

Any mandatory increase in difficulty is controversial.

The player in question isn't asking for a mandatory increase but options. They specifically opposed a mandatory increase a few posts ago.

And options shouldn't be controversial imo.

Amottica

SilverBride wrote: »

ESO overland is exactly what it should be.

You are correct. There are different tiers to content in ESO which is the common design of the top MMORPGs today. Overland questing tends to be fairly simple and easy with dungeons and raids offering the more challenging content. It is good that Zenimax started making WBs a little more challenging than what they were in the base game.

So this is by design with the top MMORPGs for a reason.

RaptorRodeoGod

If overland was exactly as it should be, this thread wouldn't exist lmao

SilverBride

RaptorRodeoGod wrote: »

If overland was exactly as it should be, this thread wouldn't exist lmao

This thread doesn't exist because there is anything wrong with overland. It exists because some players prefer more difficulty in a game.

But many others do not, which is why the debate continues.

disky

SilverBride wrote: »

RaptorRodeoGod wrote: »

If overland was exactly as it should be, this thread wouldn't exist lmao

This thread doesn't exist because there is anything wrong with overland. It exists because some players prefer more difficulty in a game.

But many others do not, which is why the debate continues.

But you made a definitive, objective statement about something that is obviously subjective, that's why people are getting on your case about it. There is debate because it is not absolutely "exactly as it should be" - because that's not absolutely true for every person playing the game.

disky

Amottica wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

ESO overland is exactly what it should be.

You are correct. There are different tiers to content in ESO which is the common design of the top MMORPGs today. Overland questing tends to be fairly simple and easy with dungeons and raids offering the more challenging content. It is good that Zenimax started making WBs a little more challenging than what they were in the base game.

So this is by design with the top MMORPGs for a reason.

It's not correct, though, because there are people who don't feel that way. You can agree that things being the way they are now is fine and good, but that doesn't mean that everyone feels that way, and it doesn't mean that it can't be better for those of us who disagree without disturbing your status quo.

SilverBride

jbarnhill1b14_ESO wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

RaptorRodeoGod wrote: »

If overland was exactly as it should be, this thread wouldn't exist lmao

This thread doesn't exist because there is anything wrong with overland. It exists because some players prefer more difficulty in a game.

But many others do not, which is why the debate continues.

But you made a definitive, objective statement about something that is obviously subjective, that's why people are getting on your case about it. There is debate because it is not absolutely "exactly as it should be" - because that's not absolutely true for every person playing the game.

Overland is for every player of every level and skill to be able to quest and enjoy the story. That is exactly what it should be.

Players that want more difficulty are still able do the quests and play though the story. They may prefer more difficulty but the functionality is still there.

Amottica

jbarnhill1b14_ESO wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

ESO overland is exactly what it should be.

You are correct. There are different tiers to content in ESO which is the common design of the top MMORPGs today. Overland questing tends to be fairly simple and easy with dungeons and raids offering the more challenging content. It is good that Zenimax started making WBs a little more challenging than what they were in the base game.

So this is by design with the top MMORPGs for a reason.

It's not correct, though, because there are people who don't feel that way. You can agree that things being the way they are now is fine and good, but that doesn't mean that everyone feels that way, and it doesn't mean that it can't be better for those of us who disagree without disturbing your status quo.

The business model being successful demonstrates how correct it is. There are a lot of threads that have asked for something different but that does not mean they are good for the game or make good business sense.

And I am not suggesting at all that everyone feels the same way. I have merely noted this business model is successful for a reason.

SilverBride

What do players plan to do if they do increase the difficulty of overland quests and mobs? These quests can only be played through once per character.

Do players plan to keep making alts to play though the story over and over? And when their character slots are full do they plan to purchase more so they can keep playing through the story? And when they have maxed their slots do they plan to buy another account so they can continue to make alts and keep going?

If not then what is the reason for making a controversial change that goes against their successful business model for something that will have very limited uses?

Braffin

SilverBride wrote: »

What do players plan to do if they do increase the difficulty of overland quests and mobs? These quests can only be played through once per character.

Do players plan to keep making alts to play though the story over and over? And when their character slots are full do they plan to purchase more so they can keep playing through the story? And when they have maxed their slots do they plan to buy another account so they can continue to make alts and keep going?

If not then what is the reason for making a controversial change that goes against their successful business model for something that will have very limited uses?

I can only speak for myself of course. I would simply do all the things I currently do in overland with increased difficulty (the respective dailies for example). I'd also play through the whole game once again with one of my alts. I didn't quest with any of them due to current difficulty.

Btw, didn't you say, that you were fine with difficulty options? Sounds otherwise tbh.

colossalvoids

SilverBride wrote: »

What do players plan to do if they do increase the difficulty of overland quests and mobs?

Give the game's story another go, or finish a dlc you've started but never finished because boredom? Me for example would just replay the game once more, maybe twice if tweaks are tasteful enough and not just "here's 30% more health, enjoy". Would finish Necrom finally.

New players that find the game too easy would have a new option, maybe some who left because it was too boring decide to give it another shot. Would defo help with players retention and keep more newbies from just leaving having nothing of interest to do.

SilverBride

Braffin wrote: »

Btw, didn't you say, that you were fine with difficulty options? Sounds otherwise tbh.

I am fine with optional debuffs only because they won't affect other players like some of the suggestions would. But that does not mean that I personally see a need for any of it.

Blackbird_V

SilverBride wrote: »

What do players plan to do if they do increase the difficulty of overland quests and mobs? These quests can only be played through once per character.

Do players plan to keep making alts to play though the story over and over? And when their character slots are full do they plan to purchase more so they can keep playing through the story? And when they have maxed their slots do they plan to buy another account so they can continue to make alts and keep going?

If not then what is the reason for making a controversial change that goes against their successful business model for something that will have very limited uses?

Didn't you say you've done all the zone quests on like 6 characters?

I just want to do a playthrough with actual difficulty, and to have a zone I can chill in and go about my business that's got danger associated with it.

SilverBride

Blackbird_V wrote: »

Didn't you say you've done all the zone quests on like 6 characters?

I deleted 3 of those and rerolled 4 new characters, over the span of a few years, not all at once. Right now I have 7 characters, and only 4 have completed all the zones so far, although I am working on the others. I have been sidetracked by the Infinite Archive, because I was seeking a challenge and I find it there.

But the difference is I am not asking them to change anything, so I don't have to show a need for a change. This change has limited use unless the player keeps continually rerolling new characters to play through the story repeatedly. I don't think that is the goal.

Warhawke_80

RaptorRodeoGod wrote: »

Warhawke_80 wrote: »

...what will work for ESO and is a happy compromise is Heroic areas which I am all for...craglorn should have stayed as is more areas like that should have been added while leaving the current world as is

Uhh, thats basically saying bastion nymics addresss the harder overland content request, which doesn't really seem to have worked. Some players want their quests to feel impactful, not a snore fest.

Impactful is a spongy word...to me Mobs having a higher hit point rate or one shotting you isn't impactful...

When the mob runs away goes and gets five of his friends and attempts to assassinate you in a very specific manner the next time your at a table playing ToT...well that will be impactful...sweaty button mashing isn't that.


Oh... we have AI today that can do that....

Hanoan

SilverBride wrote: »

What do players plan to do if they do increase the difficulty of overland quests and mobs? These quests can only be played through once per character.

In my case I will buy all DLC's and enjoy challenging questing, PvP, dungeons and other stuff, missing nothing.
After playing LOTRO for about a year (with few months break) on preferred difficulty I got to level 60 out of 160, so still have a couple of years to enjoy the game.
If ESO adds similar optional difficulty "slider" as LOTRO did, It will takes years to "finish" the game this way.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Btw, didn't you say, that you were fine with difficulty options? Sounds otherwise tbh.

I am fine with optional debuffs only because they won't affect other players like some of the suggestions would. But that does not mean that I personally see a need for any of it.

For myself, personally, one of the reasons I want a debuff slider is because it would make the new zones more interesting. I have now mostly finished Necrom but it took a long time after release because I was more interested in tougher gameplay lately. Meanwhile, I finished nearly all of solo achievements in IA in less time than it took me to even start Necrom questing.

There's also also alts that are more fun to level with older stories (I like to handle new chapters on my main first because she's done all quests) that would have a better gameplay experience if I had more control on the level of difficulty.

Muizer

Having thought this over for a bit, I think what I miss in ESO overland isn't necessarily difficulty. It's suspense. Only the quests that require you to kill no one or to remain undetected have it. There's more suspense in pickpocketing a vagrant than there is in walking into an enemy base or a vampire's lair. I don't want people to be deprived of their stories, but I don't see how those stories that deal with supposedly dangerous situations, can give any satisfaction when there's not even the possibility of danger.