Overland Content Feedback Thread

peacenote

Theist_VII wrote: »

Maybe make a new thread and tag ZOS?

Really feels like they have this one on silent and pinned just to give the illusion that they care about our feedback while responding to none of it.

I meant to mention... it's not pinned anymore...

disky wrote: »

It sounds like you take issue with the way ZOS is currently trying to address overland, meaning the difficulty increases they've made to overland in West Weald. I don't think most people in this thread are looking for this. We want an optional change which shouldn't affect your experience in any way if you choose not to enable it.

Well, again... (don't want to take credit for this very true statement):

SilverBride wrote: »

Keep in mind that suggestions are not always implemented the way the players expect.

The problem occurs in two ways, on both end of the equation.

Players say "I want x." They answer simple polls, they write or upvote on social media, but in reality, "x" can mean different things to different people. They assume that their definition of "x" is the same for everyone, and therefore don't into details about what they actually want. However, ZOS interprets this data as "a large majority of players want x" when in reality 10% of people want a, 15% want b, 5% want c, and so on, but it's all being translated to "x." ZOS implements "x" as they truly interpreted it, really trying to make us happy, but because one of those populations was louder than the others, what we end up with is, say, a, which only makes 10% of the people happy and makes some of the populations actively unhappy. Even though people who wanted b and c also technically said that they wanted "x."

This certainly was a factor with AwA, and is certainly part of the discussion here. Some people want sliders on monsters. Some people want sliders on themselves. Some people want greater rewards, some don't. Some only want bosses buffed. Some want different instances, some don't. Etc.

Then there's the other end. ZOS knows that people want "x." However, the solution that would make almost everyone happy is either technically infeasible or they are against it for a strategic reason. As a result, they try to address why people are asking for x, and come up with their own solution. Which sometimes makes some folks happy, but sometimes not, and often makes some of the populations actively unhappy, especially when players have put a lot of thought into why they want, specifically, x.

We see this a lot with combat balancing. People want a specific thing nerfed or buffed, especially in PvP, but that thing is often left alone while some kind of convoluted counter balance is put into place, leaving the population saying "Literally no one asked for this, why did you do this?? You just broke 3 of my builds!"

And of course, both sides of the equation can happen for one feature, which is when ZOS takes a complex complaint, sees only one part of it due to how customers are communicating, and then also does it in their own way and not as directly suggested.

I write all of this to basically say -- as I mentioned, I haven't tried West Weald yet. However, I worry that this problem is too complex and that any attempt to solve it will leave behind collateral damage. There are too many people out there enjoying (or not enjoying) overland for different reasons. I don't have a lot of faith that what is implemented will not impact my experience, even if that is the solution most people want, because in my experience it's not likely what we'll get. These days, I'm a fan of ZOS adding new content and new features but leaving what we have as we have it, so that we don't lose things we are actively enjoying.

Personally, I like overland specifically because it is not instanced and feels like an MMO. I like seeing people run by, with mounts I don't own and interesting outfits. I like dynamically joining people's fights and I like it when they come and help me. So since I don't mind that overland is easy, but I like a populated world, I would be against any kind of slider solution that changes enemy difficulty and, as a result, puts people into different phases of the same area. That would impact me negatively. And I've played games like that and found that feature very annoying. I don't want less population in "my" world.

A slider that impacts player only, and only goes down (such that you can increase the damage you take or reduce your armor values, but not decrease the damage you take and increase your armor values) does seem on the surface like it might be a truly non invasive option. The only problem I can imagine is a potential culture impact, where people who wish to challenge themselves and have turned down their slider may be a bit toxic to people who show up and help. But, I can certainly admit that if this idea was implemented it could be nice for folks. What I don't agree with, at all, is that if this can't be done, in this exact way, but some kind of more invasive compromise can be done, that it would be better than nothing. In that case... give me nothing!

TaSheen

@peacenote - it's still showing as pinned for me....

Stafford197

peacenote wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

Maybe make a new thread and tag ZOS?

Really feels like they have this one on silent and pinned just to give the illusion that they care about our feedback while responding to none of it.

I meant to mention... it's not pinned anymore...

disky wrote: »

It sounds like you take issue with the way ZOS is currently trying to address overland, meaning the difficulty increases they've made to overland in West Weald. I don't think most people in this thread are looking for this. We want an optional change which shouldn't affect your experience in any way if you choose not to enable it.

Well, again... (don't want to take credit for this very true statement):

SilverBride wrote: »

Keep in mind that suggestions are not always implemented the way the players expect.

The problem occurs in two ways, on both end of the equation.

Players say "I want x." They answer simple polls, they write or upvote on social media, but in reality, "x" can mean different things to different people. They assume that their definition of "x" is the same for everyone, and therefore don't into details about what they actually want. However, ZOS interprets this data as "a large majority of players want x" when in reality 10% of people want a, 15% want b, 5% want c, and so on, but it's all being translated to "x." ZOS implements "x" as they truly interpreted it, really trying to make us happy, but because one of those populations was louder than the others, what we end up with is, say, a, which only makes 10% of the people happy and makes some of the populations actively unhappy. Even though people who wanted b and c also technically said that they wanted "x."

This certainly was a factor with AwA, and is certainly part of the discussion here. Some people want sliders on monsters. Some people want sliders on themselves. Some people want greater rewards, some don't. Some only want bosses buffed. Some want different instances, some don't. Etc.

Then there's the other end. ZOS knows that people want "x." However, the solution that would make almost everyone happy is either technically infeasible or they are against it for a strategic reason. As a result, they try to address why people are asking for x, and come up with their own solution. Which sometimes makes some folks happy, but sometimes not, and often makes some of the populations actively unhappy, especially when players have put a lot of thought into why they want, specifically, x.

We see this a lot with combat balancing. People want a specific thing nerfed or buffed, especially in PvP, but that thing is often left alone while some kind of convoluted counter balance is put into place, leaving the population saying "Literally no one asked for this, why did you do this?? You just broke 3 of my builds!"

And of course, both sides of the equation can happen for one feature, which is when ZOS takes a complex complaint, sees only one part of it due to how customers are communicating, and then also does it in their own way and not as directly suggested.

I write all of this to basically say -- as I mentioned, I haven't tried West Weald yet. However, I worry that this problem is too complex and that any attempt to solve it will leave behind collateral damage. There are too many people out there enjoying (or not enjoying) overland for different reasons. I don't have a lot of faith that what is implemented will not impact my experience, even if that is the solution most people want, because in my experience it's not likely what we'll get. These days, I'm a fan of ZOS adding new content and new features but leaving what we have as we have it, so that we don't lose things we are actively enjoying.

Personally, I like overland specifically because it is not instanced and feels like an MMO. I like seeing people run by, with mounts I don't own and interesting outfits. I like dynamically joining people's fights and I like it when they come and help me. So since I don't mind that overland is easy, but I like a populated world, I would be against any kind of slider solution that changes enemy difficulty and, as a result, puts people into different phases of the same area. That would impact me negatively. And I've played games like that and found that feature very annoying. I don't want less population in "my" world.

A slider that impacts player only, and only goes down (such that you can increase the damage you take or reduce your armor values, but not decrease the damage you take and increase your armor values) does seem on the surface like it might be a truly non invasive option. The only problem I can imagine is a potential culture impact, where people who wish to challenge themselves and have turned down their slider may be a bit toxic to people who show up and help. But, I can certainly admit that if this idea was implemented it could be nice for folks. What I don't agree with, at all, is that if this can't be done, in this exact way, but some kind of more invasive compromise can be done, that it would be better than nothing. In that case... give me nothing!

I understand your point here, but I think this speaks way more to our lack of faith in ZOS than anything else.

As mentioned before a simple difficulty slider would have solved the entire issue. Essentially a PvE Battle Spirit which is only active in Overland (not any content with the current Normal/Vet modifiers or PvP).

PvE Battle Spirit would increase our Damage Taken, while simultaneously decreasing our Damage Done and Healing Taken. Actual Overland difficulty is completely unchanged so players who like it right now are 100% unaffected. This continues to allow all players to remain together in the same instances of Overland, since the only change is that some of us will have debuffs applied to our characters while others will not.
Truly this is the solution to the problem whether there are increased rewards or not.

SilverBride

Stafford197 wrote: »

PvE Battle Spirit would increase our Damage Taken, while simultaneously decreasing our Damage Done and Healing Taken. Actual Overland difficulty is completely unchanged so players who like it right now are 100% unaffected. This continues to allow all players to remain together in the same instances of Overland, since the only change is that some of us will have debuffs applied to our characters while others will not.
Truly this is the solution to the problem whether there are increased rewards or not.

I've already stated how I feel about rewards so I won't go into that again. That is in ZoS's hands to decide. But I do think this is the best and only solution that will benefit the most players.

One thing I'd like to add though is to either go back and decrease the damage and health of the World Bosses and Public Dungeon group events and Story Bosses of the past few chapters, Gold Road in particular. Or have an option with the Battle Spirit to increase a players damage and health just in overland to make up for the increased difficulty. Or both. Because everyone should be able to complete the zone story and other overland content.

Stafford197

SilverBride wrote: »

Stafford197 wrote: »

PvE Battle Spirit would increase our Damage Taken, while simultaneously decreasing our Damage Done and Healing Taken. Actual Overland difficulty is completely unchanged so players who like it right now are 100% unaffected. This continues to allow all players to remain together in the same instances of Overland, since the only change is that some of us will have debuffs applied to our characters while others will not.
Truly this is the solution to the problem whether there are increased rewards or not.

I've already stated how I feel about rewards so I won't go into that again. That is in ZoS's hands to decide. But I do think this is the best and only solution that will benefit the most players.

One thing I'd like to add though is to either go back and decrease the damage and health of the World Bosses and Public Dungeon group events and Story Bosses of the past few chapters, Gold Road in particular. Or have an option with the Battle Spirit to increase a players damage and health just in overland to make up for the increased difficulty. Or both. Because everyone should be able to complete the zone story and other overland content.

Totally agree! I think ZOS is trying to create harder content, while not understanding that this goes against the wishes of many players. I’d be glad to see some of the overturned enemies at least have their Health reduced.

It would be a huge positive if that sort of artificial difficulty stuff was just thrown onto the Difficulty Slider, in the form of us dealing reduced Damage Done.

Rewards for increased difficulty is something I don’t really have an opinion on. I honestly don’t know whether it is a good idea or not. Maybe new Achievements/cosmetics/skill skins would be a good idea? Im not sure there but if a difficulty slider was active, I imagine it would be something the community could provide feedback on

disky

Stafford197 wrote: »

Rewards for increased difficulty is something I don’t really have an opinion on. I honestly don’t know whether it is a good idea or not. Maybe new Achievements/cosmetics/skill skins would be a good idea? Im not sure there but if a difficulty slider was active, I imagine it would be something the community could provide feedback on

I personally couldn't care less about rewards but I understand why people want them, and I understand that ZOS would feel that it's necessary to do because otherwise most players wouldn't use the feature. It's probably one of the major reasons they're so scared to try it, which is why I've said that we shouldn't ask for them. It's a conundrum. I think the initial rollout should come without rewards and then implement them later, once everyone gets used to the idea of the feature.

disky

peacenote wrote: »

I worry that this problem is too complex and that any attempt to solve it will leave behind collateral damage.

This is why we've been trying to distill all of the suggestions down to the least offensive idea through discussion. I'm not a developer but frankly I don't think it should be that difficult to use existing debuff code to add permanent debuffs to a player, which wouldn't affect anyone or anything but them. The only questions are how players enable and interact with the feature once complete and whether rewards are adjusted.

Different people want different things but this has got to be the least controversial idea. It's just up to ZOS to actually do it, and if they truly aren't going to do it, I'd like to hear a definitive no so I can start packing.

Muizer

Out of boredom I 'undressed' my stamblade questing through Vvardenfell. With just her attribtute points, a mundus stone, a bow and a two-handed sword (green, no enchants) I found the Public Dungeon bosses to be roughly at the right difficulty.

With no cp, armor, jewelry, food or potions, I found the most interesting bit added to combat was the lack of stamina regen. It really adds to the combat when you have to be careful how and when you expend those limited resources. Much more important for the dynamic than hitpoints and damage alone.

Elsonso

Muizer wrote: »

With no cp, armor, jewelry, food or potions, I found the most interesting bit added to combat was the lack of stamina regen. It really adds to the combat when you have to be careful how and when you expend those limited resources. Much more important for the dynamic than hitpoints and damage alone.

Maybe if they scale things for overland, they need to nerf regen as well as making changes to damage in health.

peacenote

Stafford197 wrote: »

I understand your point here, but I think this speaks way more to our lack of faith in ZOS than anything else.

As mentioned before a simple difficulty slider would have solved the entire issue. Essentially a PvE Battle Spirit which is only active in Overland (not any content with the current Normal/Vet modifiers or PvP).

PvE Battle Spirit would increase our Damage Taken, while simultaneously decreasing our Damage Done and Healing Taken. Actual Overland difficulty is completely unchanged so players who like it right now are 100% unaffected. This continues to allow all players to remain together in the same instances of Overland, since the only change is that some of us will have debuffs applied to our characters while others will not.
Truly this is the solution to the problem whether there are increased rewards or not.

I'm pretty OK with this solution as described. My main point is that a lesser solution ("something") would not be better than how things are now ("nothing").

Stafford197 wrote: »

think ZOS is trying to create harder content, while not understanding that this goes against the wishes of many players. I’d be glad to see some of the overturned enemies at least have their Health reduced.

It would be a huge positive if that sort of artificial difficulty stuff was just thrown onto the Difficulty Slider, in the form of us dealing reduced Damage Done.

I've been thinking about this actually. I feel like the problem with the harder content, which some do enjoy (myself included), is that this was done in coordination with the reduction of content overall. I think it's good if they explore things like Bastion Nymic but not if, at the same time, less easier content is produced. It would be ideal if we got both, at the expense of neither, as opposed to having the challenging content replace the basics. If ZOS did that, and then implemented a slider so some could make the harder stuff even more challenging to themselves, if they wanted, that could be pretty revitalizing.

disky

Muizer wrote: »

Out of boredom I 'undressed' my stamblade questing through Vvardenfell. With just her attribtute points, a mundus stone, a bow and a two-handed sword (green, no enchants) I found the Public Dungeon bosses to be roughly at the right difficulty.

With no cp, armor, jewelry, food or potions, I found the most interesting bit added to combat was the lack of stamina regen. It really adds to the combat when you have to be careful how and when you expend those limited resources. Much more important for the dynamic than hitpoints and damage alone.

That's still not an acceptable solution, though. Builds are one of the things that people who enjoy combat also find to be integral to the experience, and forcing a player to remove all of the progress they've made just to have a good time goes against the spirit of the game. We should have the option to feel challenged while fighting with at full strength.

SilverBride

disky wrote: »

Builds are one of the things that people who enjoy combat also find to be integral to the experience, and forcing a player to remove all of the progress they've made just to have a good time goes against the spirit of the game. We should have the option to feel challenged while fighting with at full strength.

Then how is a slider acceptable? Because a slider will affect the player so that they won't be fighting at full strength.

spartaxoxo

A slider doesn't replace your gear. You're still able to wear your gear and build.

SilverBride

But the player won't be fighting at full strength, which is what the poster found unacceptable.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

But the player won't be fighting at full strength, which is what the poster found unacceptable.

They'd be fighting at the full strength of their build under the chosen landscape conditions. Rather than butchering their build.

SilverBride

I was under the impression that a slider would affect the player and not the mobs.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

I was under the impression that a slider would affect the player and not the mobs.

It does. But they are choosing that as a setting. It's called a landscape slider because it's how you experience the landscape, not because it changes it

disky

SilverBride wrote: »

I was under the impression that a slider would affect the player and not the mobs.

What the slider does is offset your power level while you are at full power. That's the whole point. We want to be able to engage with the game as it is and feel a sense of satisfaction, but the game doesn't let us do that because its base difficulty is far too easy.

All of the gear and skills we have access to provide flavor that can make one character feel dramatically different from another. Except they don't, because at the moment, we can steamroll just about anything with a thoughtless collection of mismatched and underlevel gear. I want to be able to feel challenged in overland content while having made an effort to prepare and while my character is as strong as it can be utilizing every tool at my disposal. That is a big part of what makes a game fun to me.

SilverBride

disky wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I was under the impression that a slider would affect the player and not the mobs.

What the slider does is offset your power level while you are at full power. That's the whole point. We want to be able to engage with the game as it is and feel a sense of satisfaction, but the game doesn't let us do that because its base difficulty is far too easy.

All of the gear and skills we have access to provide flavor that can make one character feel dramatically different from another. Except they don't, because at the moment, we can steamroll just about anything with a thoughtless collection of mismatched and underlevel gear. I want to be able to feel challenged in overland content while having made an effort to prepare and while my character is as strong as it can be utilizing every tool at my disposal. That is a big part of what makes a game fun to me.

I thought we were on the same page with the slider option but I can see now that we are worlds apart.

First of all the base difficulty is NOT far too easy. Some players may find it easy FOR THEM, but that is their own perspective and opinion, not a fact. The base game is not flawed just because some players have different views and opinions than others.

Second, it is not logical that a player can be fully geared and skilled and expect that the lowest mobs in the game be a challenge for them. If they want them to be a challenge then THEIR power needs to be reduced. They cannot expect to play full power and find trash mobs a challenge.

So if there were to be any type of slider implemented the only freasible way to do this would be to reduce the power of the player, so they will not be playing at full power.

spartaxoxo

The game isn't functional or at a good level of difficulty just because some like it either. Easy is inherently subjective.

SilverBride

Overland is not flawed or broken just because players have different ideas about what they find fun. Opinions are not facts but they are often presented that way.

spartaxoxo

The purpose of a video game is to be fun. If a game isn't fun for a large group of players, then for those players it's flawed and broken.

Edit

And obviously, if a large group of players find it fun and challenging. Then that's also valid.

It's not presenting an opinion as a fact when the subject matter is inherently subjective and cannot be a matter of fact. And fun is exactly that. People will just say what they feel and that's fine.

SilverBride

Something not meeting someone's preferences doesn't mean it is broken, especially when it is still functioning as intended. Players can feel however they do, and their feelings are valid. But feelings aren't facts.

spartaxoxo

It's supposed to be something that's fun for the general playerbase and it's not. That's not meeting its own purpose. That's why the devs are fixing it. Obviously, most of us would prefer they do that by giving us a slider. But, the devs wouldn't be fixing it if it was meeting it's purpose of providing fun for all.

Fun is subjective so they'll never please everyone. But, it is not a fact that it's generally fun. It is not a fact that it's fine as is. It's not a fact it's serving its purpose. Those things are subjective.

The devs want everyone to have fun. Not just one segment of their playerbase.

SilverBride

I have never once said that overland is fun for everyone. But it is functional and not broken. So let's just agree to disagree.

spartaxoxo

What do you mean by functional?

colossalvoids

Functional is not an objective metric either, what's the function of current overland if not being a fun experience for everyone as it being the main content of the game? Just going through the motions and steamroll stuff might be for some, but not for others.

spartaxoxo

colossalvoids wrote: »

Functional is not an objective metric either, what's the function of current overland if not being a fun experience for everyone as it being the main content of the game? Just going through the motions and steamroll stuff might be for some, but not for others.

Well, she's saying the function isn't about fun, I think? Also earlier appeared to disagree about it being for leveling when discussing rewards. So, IDK what the function is supposed to be but it's some other metric that's seen as more objective. Perhaps the ability for all to have the capability to view the story? IDK we'll only know if she chooses to answer.

Muizer

disky wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

Out of boredom I 'undressed' my stamblade questing through Vvardenfell. With just her attribtute points, a mundus stone, a bow and a two-handed sword (green, no enchants) I found the Public Dungeon bosses to be roughly at the right difficulty.

With no cp, armor, jewelry, food or potions, I found the most interesting bit added to combat was the lack of stamina regen. It really adds to the combat when you have to be careful how and when you expend those limited resources. Much more important for the dynamic than hitpoints and damage alone.

That's still not an acceptable solution, though. Builds are one of the things that people who enjoy combat also find to be integral to the experience, and forcing a player to remove all of the progress they've made just to have a good time goes against the spirit of the game. We should have the option to feel challenged while fighting with at full strength.

It was more of an experiment to see if by tweaking stats the current fly-swatting encounters can be turned into fun ones at all. I didn't want to just assume that. There could be other factors at play to make overland encounters boring. Quite a few still are, but otoh mob and boss special abilities that could be safely ignored actually start to matter. So there's an actual game there, if you get my drift.

disky

SilverBride wrote: »

disky wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I was under the impression that a slider would affect the player and not the mobs.

What the slider does is offset your power level while you are at full power. That's the whole point. We want to be able to engage with the game as it is and feel a sense of satisfaction, but the game doesn't let us do that because its base difficulty is far too easy.

All of the gear and skills we have access to provide flavor that can make one character feel dramatically different from another. Except they don't, because at the moment, we can steamroll just about anything with a thoughtless collection of mismatched and underlevel gear. I want to be able to feel challenged in overland content while having made an effort to prepare and while my character is as strong as it can be utilizing every tool at my disposal. That is a big part of what makes a game fun to me.

I thought we were on the same page with the slider option but I can see now that we are worlds apart.

First of all the base difficulty is NOT far too easy. Some players may find it easy FOR THEM, but that is their own perspective and opinion, not a fact. The base game is not flawed just because some players have different views and opinions than others.

Second, it is not logical that a player can be fully geared and skilled and expect that the lowest mobs in the game be a challenge for them. If they want them to be a challenge then THEIR power needs to be reduced. They cannot expect to play full power and find trash mobs a challenge.

So if there were to be any type of slider implemented the only freasible way to do this would be to reduce the power of the player, so they will not be playing at full power.

We are on the same page. I just said it that way because I'm speaking from the perspective of a player who believes the overland game is too easy. You know this, we've had this back and forth for ages, so let's not act as though we don't know each other's positions.

Your perspective is that "the lowest mobs in the game" shouldn't be a challenge, and that's fine for you, but that is your opinion. You're welcome to see dungeons and overland as entirely different experiences with different challenge ratings but I don't think it should be that way. I don't see my characters as godlike, unstoppable beings, I see them as skilled but mortal people who could be defeated if caught off-guard. And yes, that means a slider would lower the power level of the player, that's exactly what I've been saying for months. You've misunderstood me.