Overland Content Feedback Thread

spartaxoxo

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

People who don't like the activity just don't do it.

Yes, exactly. My point is that they may be avoiding it not because they don't like that kind of content, but because they don't like that it's not fun to do. Everyone in this thread arguing for overland challenge improvements wants to take part in overland, but they don't want to do it as it is now because it isn't fun for them. So there's a whole group of people who aren't being counted as engaging with overland content, not because they don't want to engage with it, but because they don't have a way to enjoy it.

That's where your proposed data interpretation breaks down in my opinion. If ZOS believes the people who don't engage with overland simply don't like overland then of course they're going to build it only for the people that engage with it, and forget about the people who could be enjoying it if they had the option to make it more challenging.

Just to clarify, that is not my data interpretation. I never stated that people who aren't doing overland would not want to do it if it was harder. In fact, I stated that people who aren't doing overland don't find it engaging. And pointed to adding difficulty options as a way to make it more engaging. They are actually aware that many of the people who are not doing it, would do it if there was a difficulty option. This is why they have bothered to address the desire for an overland difficulty increase on several occasions.

I stated that they can tell who IS interested in overland based off the way that they play. And that's what I thought we were discussing.

So we were talking about entirely different things. I hope that clears up the misunderstanding.

chessalavakia_ESO

spartaxoxo wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

For example, Overwatch reworked Mercy's resurrect to attempt to make it less impactful. The thing is, the way they changed it actually made resurrect far more common and more impactful and it ended up tossing of the balance of the game for a year.

Sure. I play that game as well and remember that. But in that case they actually stated that it was not a statistical issue for the rework. Her stats actually showed she was not as powerful as people made her out to be. But they agreed with the playerbase that seeing an entire team ressurect was disheartening and not fun. So they ignored the stats because the dev viewpoint aligned with the player viewpoint.

But saying they don't know what the majority enjoys is equivalent to saying they don't know how often Mercy is picked or if she was winning games.

You cannot extrapolate from a poor design decision that was explicitly stated to ignore stats that they don't know Mercy's pickrate. Nor would a poll give a more accurate picture of how many people use Mercy than the devs seeing her pickrate behind the scenes.

The eso devs insistence on not giving us options aligns pretty neatly with their statements that the majority of the player base enjoys story and exploration. Companies that chase money often operate this way and it's the players that are more into niche things that tend to suffer.

Kaplan: The goal — I’m about to tell you the goal and it’s going to make us sound like miserable failures. But the goal was to lessen the impact of resurrect overall on the game, and then also change Mercy’s play style so it was never wrong for Mercy to heal her teammates. We felt like we were in a situation — we had created a mechanic where a lot of times the correct thing for Mercy to do was stop healing, disengage, protect herself, and then res en masse. That was more effective than her going out and single-target healing one person. We felt like that was kind of broken gameplay, both for Mercy and for — honestly it never really felt great on the other end, if your team gets a graviton surge with a rocket barrage into it. “Wow, we just combo’d every ult in the game!” And then Mercy’s like, “No you didn’t, they’re all back.” So that was the goal, to lessen the impact of resurrect.

It was really interesting, because we put the changes on the PTR (public test realm), and the PTR feedback we got when we had Valkyrie now was twofold. We heard from non-Mercy players, now all Mercy is is a DPS damage machine, killing machine, and that’s all she’s gonna be. That’s why the changes on the PTR weren’t good. And what we heard from the Mercy community was just, the character’s unplayable now without five-person resurrect, she’s useless and nobody will ever pick her. Nobody was really identifying, hey, res happens really frequently now, maybe it’s actually more powerful than it was before? Obviously, quickly, as a community, we got to that point.

The developers went with the decision they wanted to make and used the community as an excuse to justify it. If you can still read the PTR feedback you can see that I and some others did in fact point out that the res was more impactful.

I think it's highly likely that any overland adjustments will have limited success or fail outright but, I don't really buy that it isn't economical to give it a go at all considering that ZOS has been ramping up the difficulty in other areas to compensate which has been making the experience for people that don't want harder content worse.

Dealing with this thread and the others like it aren't free from a moderation perspective and all of the stuff complaining about it on reddit isn't exactly great from a brand perspective.

It would also not be that hard to monetize an attempt at overland adjustments and some of the methods of implementation would not necessarily be that hard.

ESO already has objects that can be interacted with to gain a buff, so you could just use a similar approach and toss debuffs on or debuffs that buff your enemies.

You could sell the items that provide adjustments as furnishings, include them as a minor feature of a chapter, or lock them behind ESO+.

TaSheen

Honestly.... why couldn't they just leverage battle spirt, with overland difficulty changes instead of PVP stuff - as an option (want more difficulty in overland questing? check this box) - to see how it goes? Maybe it would go over like gangbusters; maybe it would thud to the basement. But even a short trial period should provide a fair amount of feedback on who, and how many, really want this.

If it's checkbox optional, no one would complain?

spartaxoxo

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

The developers went with the decision they wanted to make and used the community as an excuse to justify it. If you can still read the PTR feedback you can see that I and some others did in fact point out that the res was more impactful.

I'm not denying that rez became more impactful. I was right there with everyone else saying moth was too strong. My point is that the devs actually ignored the stats to go with feedback from themselves and the players. IIRC this is when they said they use the triangle of balance. Stats, player feedback, and dev sentiment, to make changes to the game. So a hero didn't need to necessarily need to be a statistical menace to deserve changes. In Mercy's case, prior to her disaster of a rework, she was actually not over performing statistically. But rez felt too impactful and disrupted the flow of the match. And players and the devs alike complained about it a lot. So, it got changed even though Ana (iirc) was stronger than her.

So, the Mercy rework was a result of dev and opinion being aligned. In this case, if we're looking at that same triangle.

We have the forum opinion being that overland needs to change.

The dev opinion that it doesn't.

And the majority of the playerbase loving the story and exploration (stats show overland is well liked).

So it's not surprising nothing has been done. But, at the same time, it's also obvious a lot of people DO need difficulty options in order to feel engaged. And it's possible to give that to them without changing anything for the people who like it. So, imo, they should do something.

disky

KaosWarMonk wrote: »

I do tend to agree being able to select a difficulty when doing a quest might not be a bad idea. Not really sure how it would be possible to implement in a shared space though.

You can set debuffs on the player, similar to how it's handled in PvP. The general consensus we've had going for a little while is that it would be a global setting, not tied to individual quests.

disky

TaSheen wrote: »

Honestly.... why couldn't they just leverage battle spirt, with overland difficulty changes instead of PVP stuff - as an option (want more difficulty in overland questing? check this box) - to see how it goes? Maybe it would go over like gangbusters; maybe it would thud to the basement. But even a short trial period should provide a fair amount of feedback on who, and how many, really want this.

If it's checkbox optional, no one would complain?

This is basically what we're asking for. I think there should be a little bit more depth to the implementation than a simple Battle Spirit copy/paste, but yeah, that's the general idea.

disky

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Dealing with this thread and the others like it aren't free from a moderation perspective and all of the stuff complaining about it on reddit isn't exactly great from a brand perspective.

It would also not be that hard to monetize an attempt at overland adjustments and some of the methods of implementation would not necessarily be that hard.

ESO already has objects that can be interacted with to gain a buff, so you could just use a similar approach and toss debuffs on or debuffs that buff your enemies.

You could sell the items that provide adjustments as furnishings, include them as a minor feature of a chapter, or lock them behind ESO+.

This this this all this

TaSheen

disky wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Honestly.... why couldn't they just leverage battle spirt, with overland difficulty changes instead of PVP stuff - as an option (want more difficulty in overland questing? check this box) - to see how it goes? Maybe it would go over like gangbusters; maybe it would thud to the basement. But even a short trial period should provide a fair amount of feedback on who, and how many, really want this.

If it's checkbox optional, no one would complain?

This is basically what we're asking for. I think there should be a little bit more depth to the implementation than a simple Battle Spirit copy/paste, but yeah, that's the general idea.

Yeah, but I'm not a programmer or a dev, so I don't really have any "expansive" ideas there. I mean, I'm good with php, antique html, VB, javascript - but real programming, nope.

vsrs_au

KaosWarMonk wrote: »

In the wilder area's there should be more 2 star monsters sprinkled around - either singularly/small groups in out of the way places or as a local boss if there's a group of enemies in the area.

That's exactly what I proposed in this thread I don't know how many pages ago, but for some reason it's an unpopular suggestion, even though it would involve no changes to game mechanics.

disky

TaSheen wrote: »

Yeah, but I'm not a programmer or a dev, so I don't really have any "expansive" ideas there. I mean, I'm good with php, antique html, VB, javascript - but real programming, nope.

Oh I'm not trying to criticize your idea or say that it's not good enough or anything, I only wanted to say that I think it should be similar but with more flexibility.

vsrs_au wrote: »

That's exactly what I proposed in this thread I don't know how many pages ago, but for some reason it's an unpopular suggestion, even though it would involve no changes to game mechanics.

I think those who disagree probably just want any changes to be as low-impact as possible. Changes to monster spawns affect everyone, not just those who would elect to increase their own level of difficulty. I'd love to see changes to monsters that might make things more interesting but I know that there would be a lot of players who wouldn't want it, and enough community dissatisfaction can sour the sentiment over the feature entirely. Better to keep it from bothering anyone who doesn't want it if you can.

TaSheen

disky wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Yeah, but I'm not a programmer or a dev, so I don't really have any "expansive" ideas there. I mean, I'm good with php, antique html, VB, javascript - but real programming, nope.

Oh I'm not trying to criticize your idea or say that it's not good enough or anything, I only wanted to say that I think it should be similar but with more flexibility.

vsrs_au wrote: »

That's exactly what I proposed in this thread I don't know how many pages ago, but for some reason it's an unpopular suggestion, even though it would involve no changes to game mechanics.

I think those who disagree probably just want any changes to be as low-impact as possible. Changes to monster spawns affect everyone, not just those who would elect to increase their own level of difficulty. I'd love to see changes to monsters that might make things more interesting but I know that there would be a lot of players who wouldn't want it, and enough community dissatisfaction can sour the sentiment over the feature entirely. Better to keep it from bothering anyone who doesn't want it if you can.

Very good points. As you can tell (if you've had the fortitude to read back through this monster thread) I am perfectly happy with overland as it is. But I really do want the devs to get something added for those who are not happy.

I'm still just.... not sure what that could be - because what's "more difficult" for some might still be far too easy for others.

chessalavakia_ESO

spartaxoxo wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

The developers went with the decision they wanted to make and used the community as an excuse to justify it. If you can still read the PTR feedback you can see that I and some others did in fact point out that the res was more impactful.

I'm not denying that rez became more impactful. I was right there with everyone else saying moth was too strong. My point is that the devs actually ignored the stats to go with feedback from themselves and the players. IIRC this is when they said they use the triangle of balance. Stats, player feedback, and dev sentiment, to make changes to the game. So a hero didn't need to necessarily need to be a statistical menace to deserve changes. In Mercy's case, prior to her disaster of a rework, she was actually not over performing statistically. But rez felt too impactful and disrupted the flow of the match. And players and the devs alike complained about it a lot. So, it got changed even though Ana (iirc) was stronger than her.

So, the Mercy rework was a result of dev and opinion being aligned. In this case, if we're looking at that same triangle.

We have the forum opinion being that overland needs to change.

The dev opinion that it doesn't.

And the majority of the playerbase loving the story and exploration (stats show overland is well liked).

So it's not surprising nothing has been done. But, at the same time, it's also obvious a lot of people DO need difficulty options in order to feel engaged. And it's possible to give that to them without changing anything for the people who like it. So, imo, they should do something.

The issue you hit with the triangle in my view is that the developers are the ones interpreting the player's feedback and the data which can allow them to slant any decision in the direction they want. If the data clearly doesn't back you, then you can just focus on the niche of players that do and claim they are the majority. If no niche of the players back you very much, then you can generally play games with the data until you find a point where it does or the players can't see it to comment.

I would absolutely agree that the Elder Scrolls series big strength for many people is the story and exploration but, I would suggest that ESO might not necessarily be doing as well as it could be in those areas when it comes to Overland.

vsrs_au

disky wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Yeah, but I'm not a programmer or a dev, so I don't really have any "expansive" ideas there. I mean, I'm good with php, antique html, VB, javascript - but real programming, nope.

Oh I'm not trying to criticize your idea or say that it's not good enough or anything, I only wanted to say that I think it should be similar but with more flexibility.

vsrs_au wrote: »

That's exactly what I proposed in this thread I don't know how many pages ago, but for some reason it's an unpopular suggestion, even though it would involve no changes to game mechanics.

I think those who disagree probably just want any changes to be as low-impact as possible. Changes to monster spawns affect everyone, not just those who would elect to increase their own level of difficulty. I'd love to see changes to monsters that might make things more interesting but I know that there would be a lot of players who wouldn't want it, and enough community dissatisfaction can sour the sentiment over the feature entirely. Better to keep it from bothering anyone who doesn't want it if you can.

Not really. The key phrase here is "out of the way" from the post I replied to. Nobody has to battle these enemies if they're added to the right locations.

disky

TaSheen wrote: »

...But I really do want the devs to get something added for those who are not happy.

I'm still just.... not sure what that could be - because what's "more difficult" for some might still be far too easy for others.

Earlier in the thread I wrote a list of things that could be a adjusted in order to raise the challenge - obviously increasing damage received and lowering damage output, but it could also affect lots of other things like consumable effectiveness, stealth radius or movement speed. Many people want menu-based sliders so they can adjust the effects to their liking, but I don't know whether that's possible or not. I'm trying to keep my expectations low.

Kendaric

I suspect modifying the Battle Spirit to suit your needs might be trickier and more involved than we believe. Otherwise they'd probably have done it already, as it would have no downsides I could think of.

TaSheen wrote: »

I'm still just.... not sure what that could be - because what's "more difficult" for some might still be far too easy for others.

That's a problem that will always exist, there's simply no way around it.

disky

Kendaric wrote: »

That's a problem that will always exist, there's simply no way around it.

No, so we might as well start with something simple/obvious and test until we have a system that makes sense for the greatest number of people.

disky

vsrs_au wrote: »

Not really. The key phrase here is "out of the way" from the post I replied to. Nobody has to battle these enemies if they're added to the right locations.

In my opinion we should consider anything that materially impacts those who don't desire a change as a gate to progress, and saying "just don't do this content" is a restriction that I think people would be unhappy with. I would love to see changes to monsters but if others don't want that then there's a possibility that the change won't happen at all. If we can get something into the game that doesn't affect them and improves the situation for us then I think that's the better path forward.

Not saying it's a bad idea, just that it should be handled separately from any sort of challenge-related changes.

Jammy420

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

. There is literally no way to tell when it comes to overland unless they were to make a transparent poll for all active engaged players, and for veteran players who long left as to their opinions on the matter and sent it out per email. But they do not, so I err on the side of skepticism.

That's just not true. In fact, it's one of the worst ways to tell because the people most likely to participate in the poll are the people who want something changed. Game developers rely on play data and purchase data to tell them what content their customer base likes because it is far more reliable. There is a reason the use of polling is very limited in games.

Not if they made a few posts on their social media accounts, added a splash screen in game, and posted here, and combined it with email. This is basic stuff. People who care would actually vote for it. Just because people were unhappy and left, does not mean their opinion is any less valid, especially when ZoS says they are open to constructive criticism, and have said they want to communicate more. Blindly accepting they know best, without any sort of transparency is.....well we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this topic.

I didn't just say I blindly accept they know best. I talked about game development. There are things that developers know and things they'd need feedback about. Why someone quit would be a thing they can't just measure with data. But engagement? What activities people do? That's something they have all the data they need to know. No developer worth their salt is just going to develop video games blind. I can trust a dairy farmer to know how to milk a cow. And I can trust a AAA video game developer of one of the most successful games in their genre to know what their players engage in.

Polls are generally much poorer indicators of what people want than data from the entire playerbase. People who want something changed are obviously going to be more motivated to respond to the poll. Polls are good. But they are inferior to having information about every last person in a population.

You do realize to do pvp and arenas you have to wait around in pve zones a lot of the time. So the game,by design skews the results, but go on.

And what you are describing is blindly following numbers with 0 input from players who left because they were unhappy with the direction the game is going. A better and far superior method would be polls, social media engagement, and data points, then they would have a more complete picture of

Why players left in the past
What active players like and dislike

This way they could see if it were financially more sound to continue on their path now, or to hit the brakes and try something that caters to all player groups instead.

Jammy420

Kendaric wrote: »

disky wrote: »

If the devs are interpreting their data to mean that a lack of overland engagement from players who like challenging content is a lack of interest in that kind of content, then they're mistaken.

I'm sure that many players skip through dialog and don't care about the story, but I have no doubt that there are people who, if given a reason to care, would sit up and pay attention. Adding challenge to overland may not completely solve that problem but it sure wouldn't hurt.

And why would your assumption be correct and not the devs?

None of us can say for certain how many players would even use a veteran overland/difficulty slider/debuff toggle. All we know is that a some people who frequent the forums want it.
Is it the majority? Unlikely. Is it a large group? Possibly. Is that segment of the player base large enough for the developers to spend their limited resources on a harder overland option? That's a question only the developers can answer and going by their answers so far, it seems pretty clear that they don't want to spend resources on that.

The only way they would know is through a poll, and a customer satisfaction survey which would be made visible for all players, combined with data points. Otherwise its just guessing.

Jammy420

disky wrote: »

Kendaric wrote: »

And why would your assumption be correct and not the devs?

In my case it isn't an assumption, because I'm living it. I'm not saying that the devs are even interpreting their data this way, only that the claim that @spartaxoxo made isn't necessarily true. We have very little idea about what ZOS is thinking or what they actually know.

Kendaric wrote: »

Is that segment of the player base large enough for the developers to spend their limited resources on a harder overland option? That's a question only the developers can answer and going by their answers so far, it seems pretty clear that they don't want to spend resources on that.

When we have things like Tales of Tribute appear out of nowhere, a game that I actually really love but most people seem not to have any interest in, I find this argument holds little water. I am not a programmer, I am not a designer, but I know that code which resembles something like what we want for overland already exists in other aspects of the game. I'm not saying it would be copy/paste, but I would venture a guess that it wouldn't take a Tales of Tribute-level effort to implement.

Exactly, hardly ANYONE was asking for an instanced mini game that no one can look in on, yet they did it, and they implemented it, same with excavation, no one really asked for it, but there it was.

The devs have on numerous occasions spent time on things that no one wanted or asked for, yet you have a thread, three years old, where hundreds have taken part in, same results when you do polls on twitter and reddit as well, the general consensus is the game is too easy, and there are reasonable solutions that benefit everyone, yet the devs stubbornly refuse.

Jammy420

spartaxoxo wrote: »

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Why would it be the case that a significant portion of the playerbase is primarily engaging in the story and actually listening to the dialogue if they don't find it at least somewhat interesting? If someone is mostly engaged with content they hate, that's on them really.

You said yourself that players do story content for rewards. Some do it for the sake of completion. Some people may want to check it out but they bought the DLC for other reasons and it's not their primary interest.

Personally though? I've played content that I want to take part in but don't find engaging because I like being in the world, I enjoy the lore, the characters, the music. It's just that for me, that's no longer enough anymore and I want an actual challenge. Many people like me simply leave the game, as a number of my guildmates have, and I'm starting to lean that way as well. I'm here because I don't want to and I'm trying to get the devs to help me find a reason to stay.

Yes, and if you're doing it for the rewards only, why wouldn't you be clicking through as fast as possible? Why would you actively be listening to each piece of dialogue unless you are interested in the lore, characters, etc.

Yeah, it could be more engaging for a lot of people. I don't argue against options.

I argue against the idea that the devs don't know what the majority of the game participates in. And have no way to measure it based off things like engagement. People who don't like the activity just don't do it. And if they don't find enough engagement in what is left, they leave. People who most of their time doing overland, people who make sure to see all the dialogue they can, and who engage in it more than is necessary to get a skill point or other reward are mostly doing so because that's what they want to do.

People who don't enjoy being funneled into dungeons and other content are mostly just quitting, not torturing themselves in overland. Optional difficulty increases would be a good way to get such players back into overland, or back into the game for those that quit over this. So they are a good way to expand who is interested in overland and increase engagement with the content. Difficulty options are good for the game.

IF they constantly neglect demographics in the game, and coddle a single demographic, of course the data will show the most people are doing the one thing they spend the most time on. Cause and effect. People did not stop playing for no reason, there is years of neglect, verbal abuse from devs, and flat out disrespect that caused people to leave. This game does not exist in a vacuum.

spartaxoxo

Jammy420 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Why would it be the case that a significant portion of the playerbase is primarily engaging in the story and actually listening to the dialogue if they don't find it at least somewhat interesting? If someone is mostly engaged with content they hate, that's on them really.

You said yourself that players do story content for rewards. Some do it for the sake of completion. Some people may want to check it out but they bought the DLC for other reasons and it's not their primary interest.

Personally though? I've played content that I want to take part in but don't find engaging because I like being in the world, I enjoy the lore, the characters, the music. It's just that for me, that's no longer enough anymore and I want an actual challenge. Many people like me simply leave the game, as a number of my guildmates have, and I'm starting to lean that way as well. I'm here because I don't want to and I'm trying to get the devs to help me find a reason to stay.

Yes, and if you're doing it for the rewards only, why wouldn't you be clicking through as fast as possible? Why would you actively be listening to each piece of dialogue unless you are interested in the lore, characters, etc.

Yeah, it could be more engaging for a lot of people. I don't argue against options.

I argue against the idea that the devs don't know what the majority of the game participates in. And have no way to measure it based off things like engagement. People who don't like the activity just don't do it. And if they don't find enough engagement in what is left, they leave. People who most of their time doing overland, people who make sure to see all the dialogue they can, and who engage in it more than is necessary to get a skill point or other reward are mostly doing so because that's what they want to do.

People who don't enjoy being funneled into dungeons and other content are mostly just quitting, not torturing themselves in overland. Optional difficulty increases would be a good way to get such players back into overland, or back into the game for those that quit over this. So they are a good way to expand who is interested in overland and increase engagement with the content. Difficulty options are good for the game.

IF they constantly neglect demographics in the game, and coddle a single demographic, of course the data will show the most people are doing the one thing they spend the most time on. Cause and effect. People did not stop playing for no reason, there is years of neglect, verbal abuse from devs, and flat out disrespect that caused people to leave. This game does not exist in a vacuum.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they coddled any demographic of player but I will agree that a lot of people have left this game over this issue. And because of their neglect of PvP. It seems like it would be not a huge ask to at least give us a slider or other difficulty option. I hope the new PvP content this year is fairly substantial. It's impossible for it to have been worth the wait imo, because the wait was too long (even though it's not completely their fault). But I hope it is at least good. Personally, I feel the three most pressing content things the game needs are solo modes for dungeons, difficulty options for overland (mostly harder), and a big PvP update with actually new content. They seem to be giving us the PvP thing and I know dungeons are on the to-do list. I wish they weren't double and tripling down against any difficulty options for overland.

Minstrel9806

Didn't read all of the posts in this thread so i don't know if someone already proposed this.

I personally don't mind the easier overland content considering there's stuff like World Bosses, Arenas and other more challenging PvE content.

What bothers me is the way-to-easy story boss fights in the game.

Not EVERY boss fight, mind you. I'm talking specifically about the solo zone quest boss fights already in the game.

Some examples, i'll mark them as spoiler just in case someone didn't already play through the related storylines:

Falchou, Molag Bal, Angof, High Kinlady Estre, King Kurog

Those boss fights are solo instance ones, meaning there won't be other players with you even if they're fighting that same boss.

What i propose is an option to toggle difficulty only for this type of content, something like:

• Solo Storyline Bossfights difficulty: Normal (current difficulty), Hard (World Boss style difficulty)

Granted some of the fights aren't even that interesting mechanic wise, but simply taking longer and thinking a little harder to defeat a boss makes it more enjoyable in my opinion.

You don't even need to lure Falchou in the fire to kill him in the last Camlorn quest

An Overland difficulty slider would be too much and too strange of an implementation in my opinion.
Like, how would you handle having two players with different options enabled fighting the same boss?
Would you simply take more damage than the other player and inflict less damage to the boss?

Muizer

Minstrel9806 wrote: »

Like, how would you handle having two players with different options enabled fighting the same boss?Would you simply take more damage than the other player and inflict less damage to the boss?

Yes. If ZOS implemented it, my money would be on people coming straight back here complaining about how it didn't do for them what they hoped it would. How short and easy fights just turned into long and easy (aka boring) ones. Or maybe how they were enjoying slugging it out with a bear and then someone on a normal difficulty farming run ran past and zapped it without slowing down.

disky

Minstrel9806 wrote: »

What i propose is an option to toggle difficulty only for this type of content, something like:

• Solo Storyline Bossfights difficulty: Normal (current difficulty), Hard (World Boss style difficulty)

Granted some of the fights aren't even that interesting mechanic wise, but simply taking longer and thinking a little harder to defeat a boss makes it more enjoyable in my opinion.

No reason you can't do this kind of content as a separate/additional challenge mode, like with vet dungeons, but personally I actually feel like this would be more work to implement due to the need for setting up every single fight with this code, when if you had a general challenge mode enabled it could affect these fights as well.

Minstrel9806 wrote: »

An Overland difficulty slider would be too much and too strange of an implementation in my opinion.
Like, how would you handle having two players with different options enabled fighting the same boss?
Would you simply take more damage than the other player and inflict less damage to the boss?

Yes, exactly. Depending on how the feature would be implemented, two aspects would include the player receiving more damage and dealing less damage. There could be other aspects as well, like changes to stealth, consumables and movement speed. Considering that many people who oppose this feature claim to be unskilled, I don't see how this is a problem, and in fact it could help to balance out the power gap between skilled and unskilled players.

disky

Muizer wrote: »

Minstrel9806 wrote: »

Like, how would you handle having two players with different options enabled fighting the same boss?Would you simply take more damage than the other player and inflict less damage to the boss?

Yes. If ZOS implemented it, my money would be on people coming straight back here complaining about how it didn't do for them what they hoped it would. How short and easy fights just turned into long and easy (aka boring) ones. Or maybe how they were enjoying slugging it out with a bear and then someone on a normal difficulty farming run ran past and zapped it without slowing down.

Don't know until you try, and right now the overland game is so unsatisfying I don't even do it, so I feel like it's time to try something. This idea allows people to continue playing together without any major technology shifts, and could potentially use code that already exists.

soelslaev

I will give my experience. In 2017, I started ESO with on PS4 with Morrowind expansion. I had never played MMOs before. I had tried WoW in 2007 for a few days but hated it. Never thought of going back to any MMO in all that time but craving a new Morrowind pulled me in.

I recall having serious trouble on the later quests of the main Cold Harbor solo missions. Like killing Mannimarco avatar when rescuing Tharn. For me that was like what folks talk about when playing Dark Souls: dying over and over trying different things each time. And the public dungeon in Cold Harbour was epic! Stuck inside there barely surviving. When someone powerful came by I followed them like a lamprey attaches to a shark, and I lost them I skulked about until the next free ride came along. I recall surviving on and being incredibly grateful for all the bread in Cold Harbor zone. Unlike back in the world, I could pick it up without stealing. It was a tough exciting adventure and when I first really read the skill descriptions and realized that I could put a damage over time on an enemy and then spam attack while them during the DoT I felt good figuring out a core game mechanic.

I know it is too late now and I can never be an excited virgin again but is this still possible? This year I ran around without assigning champion points on under-50 characters with random gear but it all seemed too easy but was that a delusion on my part? Would a total virgin like I was in 2017 still get that challenge? I don’t know. Too subjective to determine for me, I think.

Keep in mind, if I wanted an easier route I could have taken it. There were endless folks wanting to show me the ropes and be helpful and give me all the pointers and game mechanics and secrets but I wanted to maintain my independence a bit. Kinda like wanting to solve a crossword puzzle myself. That was my gameplay was figuring out how to play.

For other folks with what I assume is a more common game playing style, they want to be told the mechanics and given more help and hints. And for them there are now companions in addition to folks eager to guide newbies. So maybe the default configuration of difficulty should be: serious challenge by yourself and reduce the challenge by guilds and/or companions.

TaSheen

I already have "serious challenge solo" and I only play solo without using sidekicks (hate the playstyle). It's an individual thing for many - in my case, I'm in my mid-70s, my reflexes aren't good for "twitchy combat" and I live in a lovely back-of-beyond where my only connection outside of dialup (yes, in the lower 48....) is satellite. So my mega-ping is also an issue - it's around 750 ms on a really good day; mostly it's 999+.

I've been playing since 2017, paying 3 annual subs, so it's not like I don't support the game and the company. Anything done needs to be optional. My fear is that knowing how ZOS tends to react, they'll jack the difficulty and I'll no longer be able to play....

spartaxoxo

I wonder how that new ring will feel in overland. The one that disables set bonuses.

TaSheen

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I wonder how that new ring will feel in overland. The one that disables set bonuses.

What new ring?