Overland Content Feedback Thread

Franchise408

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

That was clearly sarcasm what that player put. Literally sarcasm.

Franchise408 wrote: »

.
4. If any of the above mentioned compromises are too much, then I would prefer to just see a wide spread increase in difficulty across the entire game and be made mandatory, not optional. Not changing anything is unacceptable to me, so if the above mentioned (or other) compromises are too much, then just increase the difficulty of the game to engage people who have been playing for years. This is my last preference tho, but it's better than just simply not addressing the issue.

No. It was not. It was their last preference and they stated they hoped it did not come to that, but they would rather it be forced than not have any of their solutions.

How is that difference than yourself, SilverBride, and others, trying to *force* me into easy overland?

Where did I state I'm trying to force you into anything? I don't agree with your solutions =/= I think no changes should be made to address this issue.

My solutions were (intended to all be done)

Give Debuffs to the player they can use in some way
Add challenge banners to story bosses
Add more content like the roaming bosses to the map to add threat near story zones

And we have explained ad nauseum why those solutions do nothing to address the issue.

No. They do address the issue, you just don't like them.

Nope.

Debuffs are the antithesis of RPG's. There's no point in progressing, obtaining gear, and leveling skills and abilities, if in order to play the game at an enjoyable level I have to undo all of that and purposefully weaken myself. That is not a solution.

Wandering event bosses don't address the issue of questing being too easy. Random events and wandering bosses are really no different than world events and world bosses we already have, those that we have are just more static. It doesn't address the issue that vet level players currently can't engage in questing because the content actively pushes them away.

Challenge banners for bosses is a somewhat acceptable solution, but it's just one step. That can't be the ending point.

Lord_Hev

Ravensilver wrote: »

Or will a vOL just be hordes of WB-lvl mobs that you have to fight through?


I don't think 'engaging' will be satisfied by simply upping the health and mechanics of mobs. Constantly bashing your way through uber-strength mobs every two steps gets boring after a while, too...

The same way vet dungeons operate Vs normal dungeon counterparts. "WB-lvl mobs" is misconstruing our premise. We are not asking for such ridiculousness. At least in my previous proposal, I aim for a clear-cut example. A simple veteran stat co-efficient. As an example, soloing the trash mobs and bosses in Veteran Banished Cells I. All sub-sets are present: Basic trash adds(The various skelly dudes) Elites(The Clannfear) Lowtier bosses or mini-bosses(The 1st wraith boss, The Dremora lady that is the 3rd boss.) Then you got mid-tier significant bosses in a common quest-arc.(Shadowrend, the 2nd boss) Finally the last boss on non-hm, Kinlord Rilis, which would be equivalent to the main boss at the end of a quest-chain-arc, 'The big bad the hero must vanquish"

WBs are a bit trickier, it's difficult to pin-point what their stat counter-parts would be in a veteran setting. They are designed with the intention of fighting as a group, but 95% of of even dlc WBs are mechanically solo-ble. So maybe they would share stat-line coefficient as -normal- craglorn trial mini bosses.

Lord_Hev

Lord_Hev wrote: »

WBs are a bit trickier, it's difficult to pin-point what their stat counter-parts would be in a veteran setting. They are designed with the intention of fighting as a group, but 95% of of even dlc WBs are mechanically solo-ble. So maybe they would share stat-line coefficient as -normal- craglorn trial mini bosses.

Also to obnoxiously quote myself and add another important point. Normal DLC trials are do-ble with literally, a 4man veteran dungeon group composition. We literally 5-manned the entirety of normal Sunspire. Lokke is even do-ble as 1 tank, 1 healer, 1 dps. Yoln on the other hand due to -specific demanding mechanics- needed 5 of us total( 1 tank, 2 healer, 2 dps)


Craglorn trials I have no doubt can be 4-man'd or even duo'd on normal. But like -old- at launch Craglorn that received lots of criticism of... has GROUP-GATING MECHANISMS Normal Helra can be done cleanly with standard: 1 tank, 1 healer, 2 dps; but cannot because of very specific arbitrary group-gate. Do not confuse group-gate for actual "this content cannot be done without a raid" Would it take a long while to clear it as 4-man? Yes. Would it be fun? We had a blast doing 5man normal Sunspire.

Important factors to keep in mind, which is why I emphasize the -basegame- veteran dungeons as my stat coefficient example.

Chaos2088

Would say a toggle would be a good idea, you can opt in for it being harder and if you like current pace don’t have to be forced to join it. Win win for everyone.

Or a applied debuff that would make things harder then go to a shrine in any capital to cleanse it off and go back to normal.

Vhozek

Jeremy wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

If the server is able to maintain track of a player's level and scale everything to that person's level while at the same time taking into account the quote on quote "10 million" other player's level, then it should be able to maintain track of who has something like a "veteran mode" and scale levels differently so long as the toggle replaces the initial calculations with new calculations.

I believe the problem here is profit, not implementation.
Well, how about this? If I stop playing because it's boring, I won't buy what you put out.
This has to be the only logical conclussion. This topic has been alive for many years on the forums.

That isn't how scaling works at all.

All enemies are always at the same set level, which is level 50 cp 160 I believe. At no point are the enemies scaled to player level.

Players are given buffs below level 50 to be as strong as someone at level 50 cp 160. The players are scaled, but that scaling is done at the player stat level and not at the enemy level. It is far far far different than enemies scaling to player levels, which is not happening.

Still the same level, still stagnant. The details don't matter much, what matters is that everything feels the same and that is BORING.
It also doesn't make the story believable.

The details absolutely matter when you make the claims you are making, namely, that it is easy for them to scale things now so it should be easy with whatever way you want to implement difficulty scaling. It's just false. When arguing for changes to the game, it helps to actually know how the game is even functioning in the first place. Credibility goes a long way. So yeah, the details matter.

The details don't matter because it's still boring no matter which way you put it. Whether I scale to mobs, they scale to me, they scale to the trees, the rocks scale to me, it doesn't matter. The end effect it has caused has made the game boring and stagnant. If tree textures could affect how the game plays and I say it's the rabbit's fault, doesn't matter. The effect itself is what I'm reacting to and the issue, whether it is the textures or the rabbit, needs to be fixed.

All the scaling does is treat all the zones as if they were level 50, which is where everyone is going to end up on an MMORPG anyway.

Why would having a lot of lower level zones that most people generally avoid make the game any more exciting or less stagnant?

Who's talking about high level players?
They can do trials and dungeons.

It doesn't exactly take long to hit level 50 on this game.

Is there anyone in this thread who doesn't have a level 50 character?

And besides, without scaling all the dungeons and trials in the lower level zones would be out of the question as well.

It doesn't take long to get to 50 if you grind, sure. People who care about the story don't grind.
Dungeons and trials are not overland content.

They may not be considered overland content, but that doesn't change the fact if they were not scaled then they would have remained on par with the level of the zones they are in and not suited for high level characters either.

I would also argue even if you don't grind and care about the story, it still doesn't take long to level on this game. The point is you are going to spend the vast majority of your time on this game at max level if you play it long term: unless you frequently do a lot of alts or something.

Then don't apply the changes to dungeons and trials.
Lol. Is this real?

What do you usually do at max levels in MMOs? End game content? Ok

If they didn't apply scaling to the dungeons then they would have remained at lower levels and unsuited for high level characters also. It's the same as the overland in that respect. So I'm not sure what I said that has you confused.

Anyway: it seems you only consider doing dungeons and trials as activities that should be scaled for level 50 characters. So we just have a fundamental disagreement there, because I believe level 50 characters ought to be able to enjoy questing too.

Dungeons and trials would just remain the same though. This is a talk about overland. Why would I want it to affect that content too?
Sure, level 50's can quest and shut off the OPTIONAL scaling we're asking for.

I thought we were debating the merits of scaling content to level 50. That's why I brought up the fact that dungeons (which you approved of) were scaled to level 50 in much the same way the overland was scaled to level 50. The point I was trying to make is that scaling is a good thing generally. We just need an optional Veteran Version of the landscape content the same way we have that option when it comes to dungeons.

I have to head out, so if I don't answer you back that is why. But you're right in the sense dungeons and trials would be unaffected by what I'm asking for here. So if you thought I was suggesting otherwise you misunderstood me.

No, this is a thread about overland content and I'm saying overland content is stale and boring. Level 50's can shut off the feature and continue to quest or go do late game content.

SilverBride

It's a Catch-22.

IF there is an optional veteran overland and many players use it, it will divide the playerbase.
IF there is an optional veteran overland and few players use it, the cost to develop and maintain it is now wasted.

Neither of these situations is desirable.
(The identical instances currently present in the megaservers for accommodating large amounts of players are not the same thing as a completely separate server with every mob being more difficult and having different mechanics, which is exactly what veteran overland would be.)

The issue isn't really with overland anyway. It's with how some players perceive overland. So the only reasonable solution would address this.

These are just a few suggestions that would benefit these players without negatively affecting anyone else:

• Debuff food for general overland
• Optional veteran story bosses
• A toggle to hide quest markers

Vhozek

SilverBride wrote: »

It's a Catch-22.

IF there is an optional veteran overland and many players use it, it will divide the playerbase.
IF there is an optional veteran overland and few players use it, the cost to develop and maintain it is now wasted.

Neither of these situations is desirable.
(The identical instances currently present in the megaservers for accommodating large amounts of players are not the same thing as a completely separate server with every mob being more difficult and having different mechanics, which is exactly what veteran overland would be.)

The issue isn't really with overland anyway. It's with how some players perceive overland. So the only reasonable solution would address this.

These are just a few suggestions that would benefit these players without negatively affecting anyone else:

• Debuff food for general overland
• Optional veteran story bosses
• A toggle to hide quest markers

Making me play a different game divides us more than me just holding a different opinion within the same game.

Seminolegirl1992

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

I think we also need to take into account, when discussing ESO pre OneT update, the available sets and items we had and our power ability.

We had very limited sets compared to what we have at our disposal now, and we've even had potions added and extras. Back then yes, I could understand a majority against it, because yes it was actually really difficult and we had to grind our ranks out. Now we have access to sticker book, reconning, a million extra sets, half of which are overpowered, and people are telling me that there is no way they could do the content, ON TOP of their power creep? We have constant events to boost our exp, we even have multiple arenas/places to grind new toons in under an hour, it took me a YEAR to level up my first character - This last event I levelled one from 14 in less than 2hrs and most of her skill lines and abilities to max. I just don't buy that argument you are making about it being to hard with the games system now. The game has been made so much easier over time to the point we have handicapped player advancement. We need to take all of it into account when looking at this issue. Back then we didn't have all this extra stuff, and now we do, it's hardly the same disadvantage we were at.

The only reason I am so passionate about this is because I love this game, I never want to leave. I've already had to mostly abandon PVP because of it's current playable state. I don't want to leave PVE too. I have spent money on this game, because I believe in it, not because I just 'want the fancy emote', I believe in this world we have, I cherish it so much, it means alot to me that I can explore it and enjoy it, so I need to speak up when I feel as though it's not happening anymore, if it was just me then sure, I'd shut up and go to my corner - But it's not just me. There would be more feedback on this as well, but a quarter of the playerbase doesn't even realize these forums exist, and when they find out they gotta go thru a bunch of hoops to get an account they don't bother - Why expend so much effort to be told you're just complaining?

Often times when running veteran trials/dungeons, I want to take a break and go do some questing with my group - But they never want to because there is "no point, it's boring". I ask why? "Because everything just dies, what am I doing, running to markers? Just too much time, no value." And that's been at least 12 people I've spoken to personally. Add in all those hundreds of people I run past everyday in game, I dont know them, I don't know their opinions, but surely those 12 I know aren't the only ones. These are people that say they would quest, but there's no point in it because their not actually doing anything. They want to enjoy the story, but it's hard when legitimately there is no danger (and some of these people are roleplayers, whom the larger community mock. Even some of them feel this way and I argue that roleplayers are the backbone of this game.)

I think alot of this push back is valid when taking into account how the game used to be. But it is simply not that beast anymore. Zenimax have given us so many extra things to aid us on our adventure we are essentially Dora the Explorer and the Map now.

This is an extremely good point. Before 1T the game was veerrrry different and power creep wasn't a thing. The game was more of a grind. But as you said, way more than 160 spendable cp, tons more sets, items, experience pots, etc.....of course people didn't like the vet content back then ON TOP of alliance locking, boring quest design, and most just wanting to complete their alliance story.

spartaxoxo

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

That was clearly sarcasm what that player put. Literally sarcasm.

Franchise408 wrote: »

.
4. If any of the above mentioned compromises are too much, then I would prefer to just see a wide spread increase in difficulty across the entire game and be made mandatory, not optional. Not changing anything is unacceptable to me, so if the above mentioned (or other) compromises are too much, then just increase the difficulty of the game to engage people who have been playing for years. This is my last preference tho, but it's better than just simply not addressing the issue.

No. It was not. It was their last preference and they stated they hoped it did not come to that, but they would rather it be forced than not have any of their solutions.

How is that difference than yourself, SilverBride, and others, trying to *force* me into easy overland?

Where did I state I'm trying to force you into anything? I don't agree with your solutions =/= I think no changes should be made to address this issue.

My solutions were (intended to all be done)

Give Debuffs to the player they can use in some way
Add challenge banners to story bosses
Add more content like the roaming bosses to the map to add threat near story zones

And we have explained ad nauseum why those solutions do nothing to address the issue.

No. They do address the issue, you just don't like them.

Nope.

Debuffs are the antithesis of RPG's.

No. They aren't. In fact, debuffs are some of the most popular mods in ES games too. "You take 200% more damage" isn't some crazy random idea, it's a tried and true method of increasing difficulty in all sorts of games.

That you don't personally like it because you wouldn't want to use it, doesn't change that it does in fact make the Overland harder and is a common way video games add difficulty.

SilverBride

Vhozek wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

It's a Catch-22.

IF there is an optional veteran overland and many players use it, it will divide the playerbase.
IF there is an optional veteran overland and few players use it, the cost to develop and maintain it is now wasted.

Neither of these situations is desirable.
(The identical instances currently present in the megaservers for accommodating large amounts of players are not the same thing as a completely separate server with every mob being more difficult and having different mechanics, which is exactly what veteran overland would be.)

The issue isn't really with overland anyway. It's with how some players perceive overland. So the only reasonable solution would address this.

These are just a few suggestions that would benefit these players without negatively affecting anyone else:

• Debuff food for general overland
• Optional veteran story bosses
• A toggle to hide quest markers

Making me play a different game divides us more than me just holding a different opinion within the same game.

I do not see any problem with overland exactly as it is, but some players do. So I am trying to present some possible solutions that will help those players without negatively affecting everyone else.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

It's a Catch-22.

IF there is an optional veteran overland and many players use it, it will divide the playerbase.
IF there is an optional veteran overland and few players use it, the cost to develop and maintain it is now wasted.

Neither of these situations is desirable.
(The identical instances currently present in the megaservers for accommodating large amounts of players are not the same thing as a completely separate server with every mob being more difficult and having different mechanics, which is exactly what veteran overland would be.)

The issue isn't really with overland anyway. It's with how some players perceive overland. So the only reasonable solution would address this.

These are just a few suggestions that would benefit these players without negatively affecting anyone else:

• Debuff food for general overland
• Optional veteran story bosses
• A toggle to hide quest markers

Making me play a different game divides us more than me just holding a different opinion within the same game.

I do not see any problem with overland exactly as it is, but some players do. So I am trying to present some possible solutions that will help those players without negatively affecting everyone else.

Yup. The reason I think debuff food is a good solution is it doesn't split the playerbase, does not require a massive amount of work like an entire overhaul would, and that also means it wouldn't pull a ton of resources away from new content or pvp performance fixes.

The only problem with it is it doesn't solve the incentive issue since you wouldn't get blue drops instead of green. Which is what a separate instance where the hp and damage of the mobs was buffed would have over it.

Edit

And also some players would feel bad taking 40k damage from a heavy attack when it came from a debuff vs taking the 40k damage from a heavy attack when it came from the mob being buffed, due to their power fantasy.

LashanW

Ravensilver wrote: »

I'm still not clear on what is being asked for here.

On the one hand, people have posted that they aren't doing the quests because they aren't 'engaging'.
But then again, they're asking for harder mobs.
So... not a more engaging and involved story, but simply more and harder mobs, so they can spend more time bashing more and harder mobs.

Or are they asking for the quests to be longer, more involved, requiring more effort, preferably without quest markers? (And watch zone chat explode with various versions of "where is this, where is that, I can't find x, why is y not where it's supposed to be, can you take me by the hand and show me, where are the markers, there were markers before, this is so frustrating and difficult...".

Or will a vOL just be hordes of WB-lvl mobs that you have to fight through?

Where does vOL start? With the wolves and bears that roam the countryside? With the quest endboss?
Can I switch in the middle of the quest? Start normal and switch for the endboss?
Can I re-do the quests: once on normal and once on vet? If not, why not? I can re-do Dungeons, once on normal and once on vet.

How 'engaging' should a trip through the countryside be? Will there be new quests that are only available in vOL? Will there be new enemies, only in vOL? What kind? Roaming groups of WB-bandits? Invasions?

I don't think 'engaging' will be satisfied by simply upping the health and mechanics of mobs. Constantly bashing your way through uber-strength mobs every two steps gets boring after a while, too...

[snip] Please ignore my comment if you are a dev in this game, perfectly understandable for a dev to ask such questions, since they are the ones who actually have to implement the work.

Why do some people expect us to do a full analysis on the problem, sort out all the requirements and use cases, provide a functional requirement doc and maybe present a SRS (Software Requirements specifications document) as well? That's the job of the devs.

[Edited for Baiting]

spartaxoxo

LashanW wrote: »

Ravensilver wrote: »

I'm still not clear on what is being asked for here.

On the one hand, people have posted that they aren't doing the quests because they aren't 'engaging'.
But then again, they're asking for harder mobs.
So... not a more engaging and involved story, but simply more and harder mobs, so they can spend more time bashing more and harder mobs.

Or are they asking for the quests to be longer, more involved, requiring more effort, preferably without quest markers? (And watch zone chat explode with various versions of "where is this, where is that, I can't find x, why is y not where it's supposed to be, can you take me by the hand and show me, where are the markers, there were markers before, this is so frustrating and difficult...".

Or will a vOL just be hordes of WB-lvl mobs that you have to fight through?

Where does vOL start? With the wolves and bears that roam the countryside? With the quest endboss?
Can I switch in the middle of the quest? Start normal and switch for the endboss?
Can I re-do the quests: once on normal and once on vet? If not, why not? I can re-do Dungeons, once on normal and once on vet.

How 'engaging' should a trip through the countryside be? Will there be new quests that are only available in vOL? Will there be new enemies, only in vOL? What kind? Roaming groups of WB-bandits? Invasions?

I don't think 'engaging' will be satisfied by simply upping the health and mechanics of mobs. Constantly bashing your way through uber-strength mobs every two steps gets boring after a while, too...

[snip] Please ignore my comment if you are a dev in this game, perfectly understandable for a dev to ask such questions, since they are the ones who actually have to implement the work.

Why do some people expect us to do a full analysis on the problem, sort out all the requirements and use cases, provide a functional requirement doc and maybe present a SRS (Software Requirements specifications document) as well? That's the job of the devs.

[Edited for Baiting]

Nobody asks for all that. But a general group consensus is helpful for devs to know what players even want.

Does it have to be a separate server?
Does it have to involve new mechanics or would just buffing the stats of existing enemies be enough?
Is it the entire Overland or just the stories?
All mobs or just bosses?

Those are kind of pretty basic questions.

tonyblack

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

It's a Catch-22.

IF there is an optional veteran overland and many players use it, it will divide the playerbase.
IF there is an optional veteran overland and few players use it, the cost to develop and maintain it is now wasted.

Neither of these situations is desirable.
(The identical instances currently present in the megaservers for accommodating large amounts of players are not the same thing as a completely separate server with every mob being more difficult and having different mechanics, which is exactly what veteran overland would be.)

The issue isn't really with overland anyway. It's with how some players perceive overland. So the only reasonable solution would address this.

These are just a few suggestions that would benefit these players without negatively affecting anyone else:

• Debuff food for general overland
• Optional veteran story bosses
• A toggle to hide quest markers

Making me play a different game divides us more than me just holding a different opinion within the same game.

I do not see any problem with overland exactly as it is, but some players do. So I am trying to present some possible solutions that will help those players without negatively affecting everyone else.

Yup. The reason I think debuff food is a good solution is it doesn't split the playerbase, does not require a massive amount of work like an entire overhaul would, and that also means it wouldn't pull a ton of resources away from new content or pvp performance fixes.

The only problem with it is it doesn't solve the incentive issue since you wouldn't get blue drops instead of green. Which is what a separate instance where the hp and damage of the mobs was buffed would have over it.

Debuff food is poor solution and shutting more interesting ideas on the matter. How it would even work in current state of the game where you constantly surrounded by other players who already making everything more trivial? Debuffs simply won’t work in that environment. You also didn’t specify what does it entail. Less damage done, more taken? Any incentives to use it besides wanting a challenge?
So for example I would be fighting delve boss with that debuff and other player come and insta kill it. Would it be fun for me? No. Would it address complaints about difficulty? No. It’s just divert them from their true cause. And for that reasons I prefer no changes at all than bad solutions like that.

Shazanti

In this game I play either solo, or duo with my husband, and we're questers, not dungeon delvers here. Thus, we have no dungeon gear, it's all either drops or crafted. Overland is fine for us; we're playing to relax and unwind. However, I completely understand that some maxed out/geared up/long time players find it ridiculously easy, and thus boring. I don't want those players to be bored, I don't want those players to leave the game because they're bored, or bash on the game and pile on hate because they're tired of being bored. I hope the higher end players can have the fun THEY want, and I hope people like my husband and I can have fun, too. I also hope PvPers can have the fun they want. I want all of us to have fun in this game... that's one of the biggest things games are for, after all, is having fun.

I have no idea for a miracle cure that would allow this. I know in other games I've used various 'nerfing self' methods for various reasons (via checkboxes in the game options, even!), and I did so with impunity because that nerf meant I got to play the way I wanted. I don't know if that would work here. I just want to offer my wishes that we can all miraculously get what we desire, or at least, be happy with the end result.

LashanW

There's a very few people who suggested a difficulty increase in existing overland version (even as a last resort). Just want to point out that it is completely unacceptable not only due to taking choice away from people who currently have no issues with it. But also ping.

Ping is a major factor when doing combat in this game. If you live in same region as the server then you'd never see it. But as at least one other person has pointed out, high ping can absolutely butcher even basic combat in this game.

I play from Asia and my ping is ~200ms on good days. At this ping PvE is absolutely ok, I've done several trifectas (both dungeon and trial) with this ping. But the game become more and more unplayable when ping goes above 300. There are some parts of the year when ping goes ballistic (500+) for me. I can't even complete a simple normal dungeon anymore at that ping, because I no longer have proper control over my character. Can't even barswap properly, never mind rotations. Every part of the game feels like prime time Cyrodiil at that ping.

So when ping is higher, even overland can get very difficult to manage regardless of how skilled you are. So any difficulty change must remain optional.

spartaxoxo

tonyblack wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

It's a Catch-22.

IF there is an optional veteran overland and many players use it, it will divide the playerbase.
IF there is an optional veteran overland and few players use it, the cost to develop and maintain it is now wasted.

Neither of these situations is desirable.
(The identical instances currently present in the megaservers for accommodating large amounts of players are not the same thing as a completely separate server with every mob being more difficult and having different mechanics, which is exactly what veteran overland would be.)

The issue isn't really with overland anyway. It's with how some players perceive overland. So the only reasonable solution would address this.

These are just a few suggestions that would benefit these players without negatively affecting anyone else:

• Debuff food for general overland
• Optional veteran story bosses
• A toggle to hide quest markers

Making me play a different game divides us more than me just holding a different opinion within the same game.

I do not see any problem with overland exactly as it is, but some players do. So I am trying to present some possible solutions that will help those players without negatively affecting everyone else.

Yup. The reason I think debuff food is a good solution is it doesn't split the playerbase, does not require a massive amount of work like an entire overhaul would, and that also means it wouldn't pull a ton of resources away from new content or pvp performance fixes.

The only problem with it is it doesn't solve the incentive issue since you wouldn't get blue drops instead of green. Which is what a separate instance where the hp and damage of the mobs was buffed would have over it.

Debuff food is poor solution and shutting more interesting ideas on the matter. How it would even work in current state of the game where you constantly surrounded by other players who already making everything more trivial? Debuffs simply won’t work in that environment. You also didn’t specify what does it entail. Less damage done, more taken? Any incentives to use it besides wanting a challenge?

Devs have already stated for years they aren't going to do a separate overland because it's too much work for not enough people and would separate the playerbase.

So, I suggest something within the restrictions the devs set out themselves which is nothing that separates players or requires a lot of work.

As to what kinds of debuffs
Increasing damage taken
Cap health
Decrease healing received
Decrease damage dealt

That kind of thing. So that you can actually see the existing mechanics and are threatened by them.

You're actually pretty rarely surrounded by other players while questing and in some of the story quests, those are privately instanced so nobody else is there at all. For example the main quest is privately instanced. It's true if someone else kills the mob before you, you won't get much of an experience. But that would be true of any solution.

Faulgor

LashanW wrote: »

Ravensilver wrote: »

I'm still not clear on what is being asked for here.

On the one hand, people have posted that they aren't doing the quests because they aren't 'engaging'.
But then again, they're asking for harder mobs.
So... not a more engaging and involved story, but simply more and harder mobs, so they can spend more time bashing more and harder mobs.

Or are they asking for the quests to be longer, more involved, requiring more effort, preferably without quest markers? (And watch zone chat explode with various versions of "where is this, where is that, I can't find x, why is y not where it's supposed to be, can you take me by the hand and show me, where are the markers, there were markers before, this is so frustrating and difficult...".

Or will a vOL just be hordes of WB-lvl mobs that you have to fight through?

Where does vOL start? With the wolves and bears that roam the countryside? With the quest endboss?
Can I switch in the middle of the quest? Start normal and switch for the endboss?
Can I re-do the quests: once on normal and once on vet? If not, why not? I can re-do Dungeons, once on normal and once on vet.

How 'engaging' should a trip through the countryside be? Will there be new quests that are only available in vOL? Will there be new enemies, only in vOL? What kind? Roaming groups of WB-bandits? Invasions?

I don't think 'engaging' will be satisfied by simply upping the health and mechanics of mobs. Constantly bashing your way through uber-strength mobs every two steps gets boring after a while, too...

This is getting ridiculous. Remember this is a consumer forum. And perhaps read the title of the thread again. Please ignore my comment if you are a dev in this game, perfectly understandable for a dev to ask such questions, since they are the ones who actually have to implement the work.

Why do some people expect us to do a full analysis on the problem, sort out all the requirements and use cases, provide a functional requirement doc and maybe present a SRS (Software Requirements specifications document) as well? That's the job of the devs.

The reason I'm reluctant to provide specific suggestions how to tackle this here is because people would just use it to dismiss the topic in general. Even right now there are lots of comments saying the whole thing is an impossible ask because "creating a whole other version of the game would be too much work". Well, then don't do it like that.

Franchise408 wrote: »

Nope.

Debuffs are the antithesis of RPG's. There's no point in progressing, obtaining gear, and leveling skills and abilities, if in order to play the game at an enjoyable level I have to undo all of that and purposefully weaken myself. That is not a solution

https://darksouls.wiki.fextralife.com/Calamity+Ring

Psiion

Greetings all,

Just as a reminder, debates and disagreements are natural, but Baiting other members into arguments is against the ESO Forum's Community Rules and simply not appropriate. If you do not have something constructive to add to the discussion, then we strongly recommend you refrain from posting in the thread, and find another discussion to participate in instead.

Please keep conversation respectful and within the Community Rules moving forward.

tonyblack

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

It's a Catch-22.

IF there is an optional veteran overland and many players use it, it will divide the playerbase.
IF there is an optional veteran overland and few players use it, the cost to develop and maintain it is now wasted.

Neither of these situations is desirable.
(The identical instances currently present in the megaservers for accommodating large amounts of players are not the same thing as a completely separate server with every mob being more difficult and having different mechanics, which is exactly what veteran overland would be.)

The issue isn't really with overland anyway. It's with how some players perceive overland. So the only reasonable solution would address this.

These are just a few suggestions that would benefit these players without negatively affecting anyone else:

• Debuff food for general overland
• Optional veteran story bosses
• A toggle to hide quest markers

Making me play a different game divides us more than me just holding a different opinion within the same game.

I do not see any problem with overland exactly as it is, but some players do. So I am trying to present some possible solutions that will help those players without negatively affecting everyone else.

Yup. The reason I think debuff food is a good solution is it doesn't split the playerbase, does not require a massive amount of work like an entire overhaul would, and that also means it wouldn't pull a ton of resources away from new content or pvp performance fixes.

The only problem with it is it doesn't solve the incentive issue since you wouldn't get blue drops instead of green. Which is what a separate instance where the hp and damage of the mobs was buffed would have over it.

Debuff food is poor solution and shutting more interesting ideas on the matter. How it would even work in current state of the game where you constantly surrounded by other players who already making everything more trivial? Debuffs simply won’t work in that environment. You also didn’t specify what does it entail. Less damage done, more taken? Any incentives to use it besides wanting a challenge?

Devs have already stated for years they aren't going to do a separate overland because it's too much work for not enough people and would separate the playerbase.

So, I suggest something within the restrictions the devs set out themselves which is nothing that separates players or requires a lot of work.

As to what kinds of debuffs
Increasing damage taken
Cap health
Decrease healing received
Decrease damage dealt

That kind of thing. So that you can actually see the existing mechanics and are threatened by them.

You're actually pretty rarely surrounded by other players while questing and in some of the story quests, those are privately instanced so nobody else is there at all. For example the main quest is privately instanced. It's true if someone else kills the mob before you, you won't get much of an experience. But that would be true of any solution.

Can you not use argument about “not enough people”? It pretty much invalidates you whole opinion as biased because it’s not backed by solid facts. You can’t say for certain how much people want it or will use it if it would be added.
Devs stated a lot of things over the years, but a lot of their statements was disproved by listening to playerbase and adopting some of it’s requests. Alliance change was stated as out of possibility, yet after persistent requests, it was added, same for companions, Russian localization, sticker book and curated drops and so on.

And again I think that idea of debuff food is bad because whether it would work or not would depend on hours I could play the game. Deep night off hours? Probably. Primetime? Absolutely not, because you’ll find players everywhere you go. So its use already limited for many players by MMO realities. And if it would work only in instanced content anyway why not focus on reworking it in the first place?
Would I have any motivation to use it beside challenge btw? Better loot, rewards, exp or something like that? If not it would be just pointless selfnerf, which punish me for investing my time into the game. If yes, it would be just a mean to grind more efficient and that would be its prime use.

spartaxoxo

tonyblack wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

It's a Catch-22.

IF there is an optional veteran overland and many players use it, it will divide the playerbase.
IF there is an optional veteran overland and few players use it, the cost to develop and maintain it is now wasted.

Neither of these situations is desirable.
(The identical instances currently present in the megaservers for accommodating large amounts of players are not the same thing as a completely separate server with every mob being more difficult and having different mechanics, which is exactly what veteran overland would be.)

The issue isn't really with overland anyway. It's with how some players perceive overland. So the only reasonable solution would address this.

These are just a few suggestions that would benefit these players without negatively affecting anyone else:

• Debuff food for general overland
• Optional veteran story bosses
• A toggle to hide quest markers

Making me play a different game divides us more than me just holding a different opinion within the same game.

I do not see any problem with overland exactly as it is, but some players do. So I am trying to present some possible solutions that will help those players without negatively affecting everyone else.

Yup. The reason I think debuff food is a good solution is it doesn't split the playerbase, does not require a massive amount of work like an entire overhaul would, and that also means it wouldn't pull a ton of resources away from new content or pvp performance fixes.

The only problem with it is it doesn't solve the incentive issue since you wouldn't get blue drops instead of green. Which is what a separate instance where the hp and damage of the mobs was buffed would have over it.

Debuff food is poor solution and shutting more interesting ideas on the matter. How it would even work in current state of the game where you constantly surrounded by other players who already making everything more trivial? Debuffs simply won’t work in that environment. You also didn’t specify what does it entail. Less damage done, more taken? Any incentives to use it besides wanting a challenge?

Devs have already stated for years they aren't going to do a separate overland because it's too much work for not enough people and would separate the playerbase.

So, I suggest something within the restrictions the devs set out themselves which is nothing that separates players or requires a lot of work.

As to what kinds of debuffs
Increasing damage taken
Cap health
Decrease healing received
Decrease damage dealt

That kind of thing. So that you can actually see the existing mechanics and are threatened by them.

You're actually pretty rarely surrounded by other players while questing and in some of the story quests, those are privately instanced so nobody else is there at all. For example the main quest is privately instanced. It's true if someone else kills the mob before you, you won't get much of an experience. But that would be true of any solution.

Can you not use argument about “not enough people”? It pretty much invalidates you whole opinion as biased because it’s not backed by solid facts.

No, I said that is what the devs stated and that is what they stated.

“People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff. I get that there’s a lot of people that do like the harder difficulty, but a HUGE portion of our player base just wants to do story, and they don’t want to have to struggle with difficult things.”

It's actually biased to disregard what the devs have told us. It's actually perfectly reasonable me for to offer suggestions within the confines of what the developers stated is our limitations on why we haven't gotten this content yet.

Those are

1) not enough people
2) cannot separate playerbase
3) too much dev work

Kwoung

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

So, has anyone defined or agreed upon what vOL is yet, or is it still an undefined thought that will never happen?

The exact definition is not needed. We are spitballing ideas to get traction on our perceived issue, we are not a guild or a community on discord or anything, we have nothing organized, though it is an interesting point, maybe we should be . It is for the devs to decide if it is worthy of hearing or not, and what constitutes change and doesn't. It appears that most of us on the vOL side are happy with optional toggle/difficulty meter for us. I would say the close second is at least challenge banners for bosses. I think even just one step in a direction towards us would be nice, and I could live with that, a show of good faith or something. But thats just me personally, others may feel differently

Well actually, a definition of what you are asking for is needed, otherwise the devs have no clue what you what.

tonyblack

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

It's a Catch-22.

IF there is an optional veteran overland and many players use it, it will divide the playerbase.
IF there is an optional veteran overland and few players use it, the cost to develop and maintain it is now wasted.

Neither of these situations is desirable.
(The identical instances currently present in the megaservers for accommodating large amounts of players are not the same thing as a completely separate server with every mob being more difficult and having different mechanics, which is exactly what veteran overland would be.)

The issue isn't really with overland anyway. It's with how some players perceive overland. So the only reasonable solution would address this.

These are just a few suggestions that would benefit these players without negatively affecting anyone else:

• Debuff food for general overland
• Optional veteran story bosses
• A toggle to hide quest markers

Making me play a different game divides us more than me just holding a different opinion within the same game.

I do not see any problem with overland exactly as it is, but some players do. So I am trying to present some possible solutions that will help those players without negatively affecting everyone else.

Yup. The reason I think debuff food is a good solution is it doesn't split the playerbase, does not require a massive amount of work like an entire overhaul would, and that also means it wouldn't pull a ton of resources away from new content or pvp performance fixes.

The only problem with it is it doesn't solve the incentive issue since you wouldn't get blue drops instead of green. Which is what a separate instance where the hp and damage of the mobs was buffed would have over it.

Debuff food is poor solution and shutting more interesting ideas on the matter. How it would even work in current state of the game where you constantly surrounded by other players who already making everything more trivial? Debuffs simply won’t work in that environment. You also didn’t specify what does it entail. Less damage done, more taken? Any incentives to use it besides wanting a challenge?

Devs have already stated for years they aren't going to do a separate overland because it's too much work for not enough people and would separate the playerbase.

So, I suggest something within the restrictions the devs set out themselves which is nothing that separates players or requires a lot of work.

As to what kinds of debuffs
Increasing damage taken
Cap health
Decrease healing received
Decrease damage dealt

That kind of thing. So that you can actually see the existing mechanics and are threatened by them.

You're actually pretty rarely surrounded by other players while questing and in some of the story quests, those are privately instanced so nobody else is there at all. For example the main quest is privately instanced. It's true if someone else kills the mob before you, you won't get much of an experience. But that would be true of any solution.

Can you not use argument about “not enough people”? It pretty much invalidates you whole opinion as biased because it’s not backed by solid facts.

No, I said that is what the devs stated and that is what they stated.

“People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff. I get that there’s a lot of people that do like the harder difficulty, but a HUGE portion of our player base just wants to do story, and they don’t want to have to struggle with difficult things.”

It's actually biased to disregard what the devs have told us. It's actually perfectly reasonable me for to offer suggestions within the confines of what the developers stated is our limitations on why we haven't gotten this content yet.

Those are

1) not enough people
2) cannot separate playerbase
3) too much dev work

What is the point of bringing same quotes from 1 non official twitch stream over and over and over? It was already argued against so many times in this or previously closed threads and proven wrong with valid arguments. If you are not interested in any rework personally state it yourself, don’t hide behind same overused quotes.

You can’t address difficulty issue without separating players who are already separated by gated content. There should be compromise but expecting casual and vet player to have engaging gameplay in the same instance is unrealistic. And debuffs in that case would add more harm than good.
With point 1 or 3 being totally subjective because we have no available data on both.

spartaxoxo

tonyblack wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

It's a Catch-22.

IF there is an optional veteran overland and many players use it, it will divide the playerbase.
IF there is an optional veteran overland and few players use it, the cost to develop and maintain it is now wasted.

Neither of these situations is desirable.
(The identical instances currently present in the megaservers for accommodating large amounts of players are not the same thing as a completely separate server with every mob being more difficult and having different mechanics, which is exactly what veteran overland would be.)

The issue isn't really with overland anyway. It's with how some players perceive overland. So the only reasonable solution would address this.

These are just a few suggestions that would benefit these players without negatively affecting anyone else:

• Debuff food for general overland
• Optional veteran story bosses
• A toggle to hide quest markers

Making me play a different game divides us more than me just holding a different opinion within the same game.

I do not see any problem with overland exactly as it is, but some players do. So I am trying to present some possible solutions that will help those players without negatively affecting everyone else.

Yup. The reason I think debuff food is a good solution is it doesn't split the playerbase, does not require a massive amount of work like an entire overhaul would, and that also means it wouldn't pull a ton of resources away from new content or pvp performance fixes.

The only problem with it is it doesn't solve the incentive issue since you wouldn't get blue drops instead of green. Which is what a separate instance where the hp and damage of the mobs was buffed would have over it.

Debuff food is poor solution and shutting more interesting ideas on the matter. How it would even work in current state of the game where you constantly surrounded by other players who already making everything more trivial? Debuffs simply won’t work in that environment. You also didn’t specify what does it entail. Less damage done, more taken? Any incentives to use it besides wanting a challenge?

Devs have already stated for years they aren't going to do a separate overland because it's too much work for not enough people and would separate the playerbase.

So, I suggest something within the restrictions the devs set out themselves which is nothing that separates players or requires a lot of work.

As to what kinds of debuffs
Increasing damage taken
Cap health
Decrease healing received
Decrease damage dealt

That kind of thing. So that you can actually see the existing mechanics and are threatened by them.

You're actually pretty rarely surrounded by other players while questing and in some of the story quests, those are privately instanced so nobody else is there at all. For example the main quest is privately instanced. It's true if someone else kills the mob before you, you won't get much of an experience. But that would be true of any solution.

Can you not use argument about “not enough people”? It pretty much invalidates you whole opinion as biased because it’s not backed by solid facts.

No, I said that is what the devs stated and that is what they stated.

“People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff. I get that there’s a lot of people that do like the harder difficulty, but a HUGE portion of our player base just wants to do story, and they don’t want to have to struggle with difficult things.”

It's actually biased to disregard what the devs have told us. It's actually perfectly reasonable me for to offer suggestions within the confines of what the developers stated is our limitations on why we haven't gotten this content yet.

Those are

1) not enough people
2) cannot separate playerbase
3) too much dev work

What is the point of bringing same quotes from 1 non official twitch stream over and over and over? It was already argued against so many times in this or previously closed threads and proven wrong with valid arguments. If you are not interested in any rework personally state it yourself, don’t hide behind same overused quotes.

You can’t address difficulty issue without separating players who are already separated by gated content. There should be compromise but expecting casual and vet player to have engaging gameplay in the same instance is unrealistic. And debuffs in that case would add more harm than good.
With point 1 or 3 being totally subjective because we have no available data on both.

You didn't ever prove the devs wrong. Anecdotal evidence does not trump hard data. The developers have the data and feedback from the entire playerbase, all we have is anecdotes and imperfect memories as people.

You can argue that his Crag example isn't the best, but it's impossible to argue that a huge portion of the playerbase does not like or want to play difficult content and avoids it.

The point of stating it was for me to highlight why I suggested what I did, which was to work within the confines of what the developers told us is our limits. You may find it more realistic to tell the developers you know more about what the playerbase does than they do, and that the only possible solution is a solution they have rejected multiple times for years. But I don't share that sentiment.

You don't have to know a specific number to know which side is in the minority and which is the majority. You can also have an authority on the subject flat tell you which is the case. And we DO have that. So objectively, those who want to do difficult content are not in the majority.

tonyblack wrote: »

You can’t address difficulty issue without separating players who are already separated by gated content.

You can, you just don't want to

Vhozek

Would be cool if world bosses got stronger the longer they remained alive. Perhaps they could transform into super elites as a pre-final stage and there's a notification somewhere showing a world boss is attempting to achieve Chim.
World bosses could either achieve Chim or a state of near Chim and that would take a TON of players to kill it, essentially creating open world raids.

tonyblack

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Vhozek wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

It's a Catch-22.

IF there is an optional veteran overland and many players use it, it will divide the playerbase.
IF there is an optional veteran overland and few players use it, the cost to develop and maintain it is now wasted.

Neither of these situations is desirable.
(The identical instances currently present in the megaservers for accommodating large amounts of players are not the same thing as a completely separate server with every mob being more difficult and having different mechanics, which is exactly what veteran overland would be.)

The issue isn't really with overland anyway. It's with how some players perceive overland. So the only reasonable solution would address this.

These are just a few suggestions that would benefit these players without negatively affecting anyone else:

• Debuff food for general overland
• Optional veteran story bosses
• A toggle to hide quest markers

Making me play a different game divides us more than me just holding a different opinion within the same game.

I do not see any problem with overland exactly as it is, but some players do. So I am trying to present some possible solutions that will help those players without negatively affecting everyone else.

Yup. The reason I think debuff food is a good solution is it doesn't split the playerbase, does not require a massive amount of work like an entire overhaul would, and that also means it wouldn't pull a ton of resources away from new content or pvp performance fixes.

The only problem with it is it doesn't solve the incentive issue since you wouldn't get blue drops instead of green. Which is what a separate instance where the hp and damage of the mobs was buffed would have over it.

Debuff food is poor solution and shutting more interesting ideas on the matter. How it would even work in current state of the game where you constantly surrounded by other players who already making everything more trivial? Debuffs simply won’t work in that environment. You also didn’t specify what does it entail. Less damage done, more taken? Any incentives to use it besides wanting a challenge?

Devs have already stated for years they aren't going to do a separate overland because it's too much work for not enough people and would separate the playerbase.

So, I suggest something within the restrictions the devs set out themselves which is nothing that separates players or requires a lot of work.

As to what kinds of debuffs
Increasing damage taken
Cap health
Decrease healing received
Decrease damage dealt

That kind of thing. So that you can actually see the existing mechanics and are threatened by them.

You're actually pretty rarely surrounded by other players while questing and in some of the story quests, those are privately instanced so nobody else is there at all. For example the main quest is privately instanced. It's true if someone else kills the mob before you, you won't get much of an experience. But that would be true of any solution.

Can you not use argument about “not enough people”? It pretty much invalidates you whole opinion as biased because it’s not backed by solid facts.

No, I said that is what the devs stated and that is what they stated.

“People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff. I get that there’s a lot of people that do like the harder difficulty, but a HUGE portion of our player base just wants to do story, and they don’t want to have to struggle with difficult things.”

It's actually biased to disregard what the devs have told us. It's actually perfectly reasonable me for to offer suggestions within the confines of what the developers stated is our limitations on why we haven't gotten this content yet.

Those are

1) not enough people
2) cannot separate playerbase
3) too much dev work

What is the point of bringing same quotes from 1 non official twitch stream over and over and over? It was already argued against so many times in this or previously closed threads and proven wrong with valid arguments. If you are not interested in any rework personally state it yourself, don’t hide behind same overused quotes.

You can’t address difficulty issue without separating players who are already separated by gated content. There should be compromise but expecting casual and vet player to have engaging gameplay in the same instance is unrealistic. And debuffs in that case would add more harm than good.
With point 1 or 3 being totally subjective because we have no available data on both.

You didn't ever prove the devs wrong. Anecdotal evidence does not trump hard data. The developers have the data and feedback from the entire playerbase, all we have is anecdotes and imperfect memories as people.

You can argue that his Crag example isn't the best, but it's impossible to argue that a huge portion of the playerbase does not like or want to play difficult content and avoids it.

The point of stating it was for me to highlight why I suggested what I did, which was to work within the confines of what the developers told us is our limits. You may find it more realistic to tell the developers you know more about what the playerbase does than they do, and that the only possible solution is a solution they have rejected multiple times for years. But I don't share that sentiment.

You don't have to know a specific number to know which side is in the minority and which is the majority. You can also have an authority on the subject flat tell you which is the case. And we DO have that. So objectively, those who want to do difficult content are not in the majority.

tonyblack wrote: »

You can’t address difficulty issue without separating players who are already separated by gated content.

You can, you just don't want to

I don’t want or need to argue about this quote. This is pointless. It’s like every 5 pages same quotes brought in discussion, disproven with no replies from those who brought it and then brought again with no regards to previously made arguments. It was brought many times by same people who are strongly against existence of this discussion and not interested in any solution unless it’s some simple half baked measure to just shut down such requests permanently.
Your evidence is not less anecdotal than mine and mostly based around quote from 1 non official twitch stream. We have no concrete data, not even official reply and arguing about data we don’t have is counterproductive.

spartaxoxo

tonyblack wrote: »

Your evidence is not less anecdotal than mine

Yes. It is. Rich Lambert works for Bethesda, you do not.

Here's a more official quote

As for the extra difficulty, that's something our playerbase has talked about for a long time. A lot of our original players forget that we had that with [Cadwell's Gold and Silver] way back when. The feedback that we got about that was they didn't like it. It wasn't fun. The extra difficulty wasn't what they wanted. They wanted to enjoy the story. It's a catch-22."

From Matt Firor in an official interview.

Sorry, but it's objectively true.

Being in the minority doesn't mean nothing should be done, so that's not what I am saying.

Vhozek

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

Your evidence is not less anecdotal than mine

Yes. It is. Rich Lambert works for Bethesda, you do not.

Here's a more official quote

As for the extra difficulty, that's something our playerbase has talked about for a long time. A lot of our original players forget that we had that with [Cadwell's Gold and Silver] way back when. The feedback that we got about that was they didn't like it. It wasn't fun. The extra difficulty wasn't what they wanted. They wanted to enjoy the story. It's a catch-22."

From Matt Firor in an official interview.

Sorry, but it's objectively true.

Being in the minority doesn't mean nothing should be done, so that's not what I am saying.

Their mistake is assuming the entire system needed to be scrapped and redone instead of rebalanced. How do you go from one end of the spectrum to the other without thinking you should probably try to find a middle ground? There's obviously a ton of mobs in the game that needed to remain difficult.

spartaxoxo

Vhozek wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

Your evidence is not less anecdotal than mine

Yes. It is. Rich Lambert works for Bethesda, you do not.

Here's a more official quote

As for the extra difficulty, that's something our playerbase has talked about for a long time. A lot of our original players forget that we had that with [Cadwell's Gold and Silver] way back when. The feedback that we got about that was they didn't like it. It wasn't fun. The extra difficulty wasn't what they wanted. They wanted to enjoy the story. It's a catch-22."

From Matt Firor in an official interview.

Sorry, but it's objectively true.

Being in the minority doesn't mean nothing should be done, so that's not what I am saying.

Their mistake is assuming the entire system needed to be scrapped and redone instead of rebalanced. How do you go from one end of the spectrum to the other without thinking you should probably try to find a middle ground? There's obviously a ton of mobs in the game that needed to remain difficult.

I do think at the very least they could have ensured the various mini-quest bosses were harder than the regular mobs. I don't think it's realistic to ask them to overhaul all of them now this many years later, but it is kinda lame they die before speaking one sentence.

Faulgor

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

Your evidence is not less anecdotal than mine

Yes. It is. Rich Lambert works for Bethesda, you do not.

Here's a more official quote

As for the extra difficulty, that's something our playerbase has talked about for a long time. A lot of our original players forget that we had that with [Cadwell's Gold and Silver] way back when. The feedback that we got about that was they didn't like it. It wasn't fun. The extra difficulty wasn't what they wanted. They wanted to enjoy the story. It's a catch-22."

From Matt Firor in an official interview.

Sorry, but it's objectively true.

Being in the minority doesn't mean nothing should be done, so that's not what I am saying.

I find Firor's statement a bit condescending tbh - it's precisely the original players that did not forget what the game was like shortly after release, and the issues with Cadwell zones and Craglorn were more numerous than their difficulty.

For Cadwell in particular, one main issue was that you could go there only after finishing the main quest and reaching max level, which effectively presented these zones as endgame content. But you could experience that same content just by creating a new character in that alliance, which most players chose instead. Being able to do what a level 1 character can do is a poor carrot for endgame players.

Craglorn stumbled mainly over the forced grouping for quests, which meant you had to find people at the exact quest stage you were at to continue the story. Most people didn't even bother with that, and just stuck to grinding anomalies and world events for EXP.

Which ties into the problem of the whole reward structure of the game at the time, mainly that it didn't exist. VR ranks always felt like "sorry we don't have any more levels for you, here are some astronomical exp bars to fill" which made any content past level 50 feel so, so arduous. The only reason you'd want to rank up anyway was to beat higher VR rank mobs in the Cadwell and Craglorn zones, which, as said above, made poor endgame content for other reasons than just their difficulty.
In terms of items or cosmetic rewards, there was also virtually nothing. Crafted sets were superior anyway, by design.
If the only content the game offers is questing, and I can do it on a new character at level 1 or with an old character after weeks of grinding VR rank exp, of course I'm not going to bother.

When Matt Firor says that people didn't like the difficulty in those old zones, he is technically correct. But that is only part of the picture, because they particularly didn't like that the content wasn't worth the effort. It should be mentioned that at the same time, people were complaining massively that there was effectively no worthwhile endgame content at all, which is why ZOS tried to fill that gap with trials and new veteran dungeons (the base game veteran dungeons weren't that difficult at release far as I recall. City of Ash 2 was a real spike in difficulty, yet due to power creep is easier today than most DLC dungeons), but these also came too slow to keep players around or where not what players were looking for - highly coordinated 12 man raids with hour long play sessions aren't for everyone, even if they look for a challenge. Hence the addition of Maelstrom arena, etc etc.

So even at a time when he says that people didn't want more difficult content, they kept releasing more difficult content. Not to mention that even the non-Cadwell zones then were harder than they are today. There is also a lot of content in the game today that is vastly more difficult than the old Cadwell zones ever were, and people still do it. ZOS still bangs out 4 group dungeons with veteran hardmodes each year.

You could point out that there is a difference in expected difficulty between story and group content, but that just shows that the answer isn't that simple. Just like there are still people who want to experience group content in a story mode (which gets requested about as often), there are people who want to experience the story content at a higher difficulty.
Separating content difficulty by content type - hard instanced group dungeons vs easy story content - was a decision that ZOS made, and I think there is enough player demand for some cross-over there.