Overland Content Feedback Thread

SilverBride

Theist_VII wrote: »

That gaming term is clearly meant to be derogatory towards enemies that are lesser than a boss.

There are several examples of people referencing those said mobs as useless, wasters of time.

This term has been used in virtually every MMO since MMOs have been around, about 30 years now. It is not an insult to the developers or anyone making any of these games. And the trash mobs don't even know we are calling them that, so they aren't insulted.

Theist_VII

SilverBride wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

That gaming term is clearly meant to be derogatory towards enemies that are lesser than a boss.

There are several examples of people referencing those said mobs as useless, wasters of time.

This term has been used in virtually every MMO since MMOs have been around, about 30 years now. It is not an insult to the developers or anyone making any of these games.

It’s an insult to the genre. You’re using precedent as justification and it doesn’t work.

I can think of quite a few choice terms that have persisted over the years despite being derogatory, try tacking any of those before the word “mob” and tell me if it has a different meaning than the word itself.

You are literally describing the mob as the word.
Preposition 101, basic English.

spartaxoxo

I agree that trash mobs is not insulting. I actually use that term all the time and it's a common term in video games across genres. It's a just a term for fodder enemies.

But, in this case, I actually did not use trash to refer to enemies. We'd been talking about overland rewards so I was talking about excluding people from stuff like daedra husk, carapace, etc. Which is literally called trash in this game.

Theist_VII wrote: »

You can’t have enemies ONLY improve their intelligence against higher difficulty players when aggroed to them, otherwise there’s a way to bypass the additional difficulty completely.

Irregardless of the reward system, we’ve doubled back to the original point.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

No. Actually, you can have them only attack the person with the slider. There is no need to change a solo content into group content for the purpose of excluding people from trash.

Like here is Gina talking about Used Bait being marked as trash

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/5325322#Comment_5325322

Here's a list of trash overland rewards.
https://en.m.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Trash

Theist_VII

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I agree that trash mobs is not insulting. I actually use that term all the time and it's a common term in video games across genres. It's a just a term for fodder enemies.

But, in this case, I actually did not use trash to refer to enemies. We'd been talking about overland rewards so I was talking about excluding people from stuff like daedra husk, carapace, etc. Which is literally called trash in this game.

Like here is Gina talking about Used Bait being marked as trash

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/5325322#Comment_5325322

Here's a list of trash overland rewards.
https://en.m.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Trash

Yet you wouldn’t go into anyone else’s place of work and refer to that as trash unless explicitly specified as such, would you?

Also, have no doubt I am of the same opinion that the mobs in ESO are “trash mobs” and am delighted to see so many others agree.

We might get some changes to Overland after all. /s

spartaxoxo

Theist_VII wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I agree that trash mobs is not insulting. I actually use that term all the time and it's a common term in video games across genres. It's a just a term for fodder enemies.

But, in this case, I actually did not use trash to refer to enemies. We'd been talking about overland rewards so I was talking about excluding people from stuff like daedra husk, carapace, etc. Which is literally called trash in this game.

Like here is Gina talking about Used Bait being marked as trash

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/5325322#Comment_5325322

Here's a list of trash overland rewards.
https://en.m.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Trash

Yet you wouldn’t go into anyone else’s place of work and refer to that as trash unless explicitly specified as such, would you?

I might if it was my job to destroy it?

SilverBride

Theist_VII wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

That gaming term is clearly meant to be derogatory towards enemies that are lesser than a boss.

There are several examples of people referencing those said mobs as useless, wasters of time.

This term has been used in virtually every MMO since MMOs have been around, about 30 years now. It is not an insult to the developers or anyone making any of these games.

It’s an insult to the genre. You’re using precedent as justification and it doesn’t work.

Let me get this straight. We can't call them "trash" mobs but we can kill hundreds of them every time we play? If I were one of these "trash mobs" I know which I'd prefer.

Theist_VII

At the end of the day, I have explained what would and wouldn’t work, and the burden is on ZOS to make the call, but I have no delusions that they care about anything that any of us have to say.

ESO is in need of a drastic overhaul of Overland/Questing and we have a thread built from years of feedback that some kid in college could write a thesis about on how not to honor feedback.

Dahveed

SilverBride wrote: »

Three years of feedback is enough. It's time to take action. And a little communication would be helpful, too.

• Give them a slider
• Decrease the base difficulty of the World Bosses, Story Bosses and Public Dungeon group events from the HIgh Isle Chapter forward
• Stop with the Invulnerable phases that only serve to prolong the fights
• Make everyone happy by doing all of the above
• Then close this 3 year old thread

This.

You've finally said something that I wholeheartedly, 100% agree with.

This is EXACTLY, word for word, what they should do.

Dahveed

colossalvoids wrote: »

Stafford197 wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Just doing my 3month-check in.
Any news or is Openworld still bad?

Still bad, and worse, people are capitulating to the idea of a slider nowadays.

Funny enough, if a slider was implemented, you’d see the same faces back again complaining about enemies using the same dull attacks, and how trivial it is to avoid them.

What’s wrong with a slider? It outright solves the difficulty issue with minimal effort, as it does in many other games.

If you’re asking for ZOS to completely rework all enemy AI, we’ve now crossed into the realm of unreasonability on many different fronts. You seem to think you know better than everyone else though so what’s your idea here, given the many different needs of the community and current game limitations?

It was discussed to death before, ai reaction times, wind up attacks etc. where slider won't do much to make it an actual encounter. Look at dungeon or trial counterparts that are doing the same but more effective.

This is incorrect. It's true for perhaps one or two enemies, but when I'm soloing a dungeon and I have 7 npcs all doing their stuff at once, it's often very difficult to see three or four telegraphed attacks at once.

The problem is that none of them do any damage, because I'm basically invincible. With a slider, those attacks would hurt a lot more, so I'd have to avoid them strategically and/or quickly, with my actual reflexes...

Dahveed

Theist_VII wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

That gaming term is clearly meant to be derogatory towards enemies that are lesser than a boss.

There are several examples of people referencing those said mobs as useless, wasters of time.

This term has been used in virtually every MMO since MMOs have been around, about 30 years now. It is not an insult to the developers or anyone making any of these games.

It’s an insult to the genre. You’re using precedent as justification and it doesn’t work.

I can think of quite a few choice terms that have persisted over the years despite being derogatory, try tacking any of those before the word “mob” and tell me if it has a different meaning than the word itself.

You are literally describing the mob as the word.
Preposition 101, basic English.

Dude seriously. Is this the hill you're going to die on?

"Trash mob" is an MMO term, nobody is being insulting by using it.

Sheesh. I can't believe you're even arguing about this.

I 100% guarantee you that every ZoS developer on the ESO team also uses this term when referring to their trash mobs.

lol.

tonyblack

No viable difficulty increase solution ever work if it didn’t involve instance split. There is no satisfaction in fighting the same enemies among those with lower difficulty with 0 incentives other than mediocre gold increase and purple (worthless) drops.

It’s absolutely killing any incentive (at least for this content) to create different builds and master them. It doesn’t motivate to engage in such system by anyone other than diehard fans.

If this problem ever to be addressed it should be done in a meaningful way: where combat engaging for both parties, rewarding and satisfying with clear progression from normal to veteran. Not as the punishment for being more competitive, combat oriented player, who is there to provide some awkward illusion that game isn’t dead.

disky

tonyblack wrote: »

No viable difficulty increase solution ever work if it didn’t involve instance split. There is no satisfaction in fighting the same enemies among those with lower difficulty with 0 incentives other than mediocre gold increase and purple (worthless) drops.

It’s absolutely killing any incentive (at least for this content) to create different builds and master them. It doesn’t motivate to engage in such system by anyone other than diehard fans.

If this problem ever to be addressed it should be done in a meaningful way: where combat engaging for both parties, rewarding and satisfying with clear progression from normal to veteran. Not as the punishment for being more competitive, combat oriented player, who is there to provide some awkward illusion that game isn’t dead.

"Split the playerbase" is not a solution, it's just a function of an implementation of a solution. So what is your plan to improve things once a player chooses their server? What are the metrics by which you create your ideal challenge scenario? How does this serve all players?

What this will do is confuse players, lead to further dissatisfaction and buyer's remorse once the player realizes they've made a mistake and want to move. It doesn't provide flexibility for those who want to try something harder or move between difficulties, which a slider would do. It would lead to emptier zones for everyone because some people would be in one instance while others would be in another. It would discourage grouping because of lower populations for everyone, and grouping would certainly be harder for those who want a challenge because there would be far fewer of us in this new server.

What you're asking ZOS to do is to balance things separately for each server, new server structure, new patching structure, new UI for a server selection screen, an entirely different set of server rules, and most importantly, you're asking them to pay for two separate sets of dedicated servers, including all of the maintenance that entails.

So I have two questions:

1. What are your actual ideas for improving the situation beyond splitting players into multiple instances? I'm talking about an actual method for increasing challenge and player satisfaction. How will this work?

2. What are the real advantages of splitting the playerbase? If we're splitting players by a server line, the benefits have to outweigh the downsides by far.

And while I can understand that you see advantages for yourself and your playstyle, when you make your response, I encourage you to see things from the perspective of Zenimax Online Studios, because that will always be the perspective by which decisions are made.

colossalvoids

Just a reminder that players are already split through instancing, it's not an issue. A smart instancing for players with HM and ones without it won't change a single thing about the game, especially if chat is shared so you can call or answer the call for help. And advantage is that no one is ruining other's fun with that, which is way harder to achieve with having one enormous instance that not even exists currently.

disky

colossalvoids wrote: »

Just a reminder that players are already split through instancing, it's not an issue. A smart instancing for players with HM and ones without it won't change a single thing about the game, especially if chat is shared so you can call or answer the call for help. And advantage is that no one is ruining other's fun with that, which is way harder to achieve with having one enormous instance that not even exists currently.

Yes, it will. Even if it works exactly like the PvP structure, it's still a new set of server rules, new balance structure, and you're separating that server from the regular megaserver instance structure, which will not only remove those players from the normal servers leading to a more empty main world, but for those who choose hard mode, the world will be far more empty because we're in the minority.

So a separate server would keep us from ruining each other's fun. How so? I'm guessing the idea is that a challenge server would theoretically have vastly different rules and/or challenge features like additional enemy abilities, right? That's still a huge amount of work to create content for a minority of players to enjoy, that most players will never see, and it's a permanent solution that, once implemented, cannot easily be changed. If it turns out that the server is dead in a matter of weeks or months, that was a huge amount of wasted effort from ZOS.

So while I think it sounds nice in theory, it's just not going to happen. A challenge slider provides something for us to enjoy in the current system using existing code without splitting up the playerbase or requiring new back-end work. It's a far more reasonable and sustainable option.

colossalvoids

Not sure what servers you're referring to as it's about instancing. One instance having world boss dead while the other have him spawned, one instance having bunch of 20k hp bandits pack spawned and the other have 120k hp ones instead as they're sharing the same spawn location but a different ruleset for their appearance. It's the same mob, but stats and ability set is tweaked numerically or altered in manner how vet content does it already gating some mechanics behind further increased difficulty. And it's not like it needs anything new, add an archer take aim from BRP and that's already an opponent you're tracking constantly instead of just mauling stuff mindlessly.

IMO their chance to satisfy playerbase with a simple slider long gone, it's not 2021 anymore and there's serious competition for players time on a market, time of simple ways outs are gone and any half-baked solutions have a high chances to flop entirely. Look at Scribing, it would be a huge win like four or six years ago, now it's almost forgotten after literally just being launched. Even home tours could work but if those were a part of CWC or at least Murkmire. Not going to argue about it but that's my opinion, landscape is changing and chances are slipping. I'm not waiting for anything personally as I just broke my addiction to ESO and enjoying it casually from time to time doing dungeons primarily but to become a main game again it should go miles above and beyond with all the direct and indirect competitors around. "Realistic", "simple" and "cheap" solution are cute but those aren't bringing much people back seeing amount of effort not spent there.

tonyblack

disky wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

No viable difficulty increase solution ever work if it didn’t involve instance split. There is no satisfaction in fighting the same enemies among those with lower difficulty with 0 incentives other than mediocre gold increase and purple (worthless) drops.

It’s absolutely killing any incentive (at least for this content) to create different builds and master them. It doesn’t motivate to engage in such system by anyone other than diehard fans.

If this problem ever to be addressed it should be done in a meaningful way: where combat engaging for both parties, rewarding and satisfying with clear progression from normal to veteran. Not as the punishment for being more competitive, combat oriented player, who is there to provide some awkward illusion that game isn’t dead.

"Split the playerbase" is not a solution, it's just a function of an implementation of a solution. So what is your plan to improve things once a player chooses their server? What are the metrics by which you create your ideal challenge scenario? How does this serve all players?

What this will do is confuse players, lead to further dissatisfaction and buyer's remorse once the player realizes they've made a mistake and want to move. It doesn't provide flexibility for those who want to try something harder or move between difficulties, which a slider would do. It would lead to emptier zones for everyone because some people would be in one instance while others would be in another. It would discourage grouping because of lower populations for everyone, and grouping would certainly be harder for those who want a challenge because there would be far fewer of us in this new server.

What you're asking ZOS to do is to balance things separately for each server, new server structure, new patching structure, new UI for a server selection screen, an entirely different set of server rules, and most importantly, you're asking them to pay for two separate sets of dedicated servers, including all of the maintenance that entails.

So I have two questions:

1. What are your actual ideas for improving the situation beyond splitting players into multiple instances? I'm talking about an actual method for increasing challenge and player satisfaction. How will this work?

2. What are the real advantages of splitting the playerbase? If we're splitting players by a server line, the benefits have to outweigh the downsides by far.

And while I can understand that you see advantages for yourself and your playstyle, when you make your response, I encourage you to see things from the perspective of Zenimax Online Studios, because that will always be the perspective by which decisions are made.

I don’t see splitting playerbase as bad thing as everyone playing however they enjoy, especially in overland and questing. Over the years I had 0 interactions with others while doing quests and mostly tried to ignore any players I see as I preferred to immerse myself in the story. There is absolutely no value in seeing others in content, designed to be played solo at own pace. PvP without players is nonsense, group PvE solo is completely different experience, but in solo overland questing there would be nothing lost even if it would be completely single player mode. I’d go as far as to say that I would enjoy empty world even more as I see others there rather as annoyances.

As to how it functions it could be hundreds different solutions, easiest one in my opinion would be just toggle normal (current) and veteran mode instance, endure loading screen and start at the beginning of a delve, public dungeon or at the same spot you were before switch in open world. Could make town + areas around world bosses and incursions shared with common chat, so that group content stayed where it is now. There are dozens of split instances in open world or instanced areas already so it is not like it required some extraordinary mega expensive solution some claim it would take.

From there you could get tougher mobs and bosses as the start, so that engaging in combat would actually be immersive as you wouldn’t artificially nerf yourself, then there could be additional enemies, preferably those that spawn in dungeons, with interesting attacks and mechanics, some additional world effects and status effects and so on.

Then you can incentivize it with achievements, titles and maybe a couple cool collectibles, so it would make it actually rewarding and satisfying experience.

disky

colossalvoids wrote: »

Not sure what servers you're referring to as it's about instancing. One instance having world boss dead while the other have him spawned, one instance having bunch of 20k hp bandits pack spawned and the other have 120k hp ones instead as they're sharing the same spawn location but a different ruleset for their appearance. It's the same mob, but stats and ability set is tweaked numerically or altered in manner how vet content does it already gating some mechanics behind further increased difficulty. And it's not like it needs anything new, add an archer take aim from BRP and that's already an opponent you're tracking constantly instead of just mauling stuff mindlessly.

IMO their chance to satisfy playerbase with a simple slider long gone, it's not 2021 anymore and there's serious competition for players time on a market, time of simple ways outs are gone and any half-baked solutions have a high chances to flop entirely. Look at Scribing, it would be a huge win like four or six years ago, now it's almost forgotten after literally just being launched. Even home tours could work but if those were a part of CWC or at least Murkmire. Not going to argue about it but that's my opinion, landscape is changing and chances are slipping. I'm not waiting for anything personally as I just broke my addiction to ESO and enjoying it casually from time to time doing dungeons primarily but to become a main game again it should go miles above and beyond with all the direct and indirect competitors around. "Realistic", "simple" and "cheap" solution are cute but those aren't bringing much people back seeing amount of effort not spent there.

"Realistic" doesn't only encompass costs, it's also about player interest and demographics. Those of us who want things to change are in the minority right now, and we have to keep in mind that in order to justify the costs of creating a new instance with new rules, adding abilities to monsters, and maintaining all of this for the life of the game, it has to be worthwhile to ZOS. For every player who thinks this is a great idea, there are four or five who don't care or actively dislike the idea. So while you think a big move like this is the only path to success for ZOS, your perception is clouded by your desire for that change. ZOS can please many people with far less effort, and when we ask them for something, we have to do it with the knowledge that we aren't the majority demographic and we have to understand that their time and effort is limited.

disky

tonyblack wrote: »

disky wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

No viable difficulty increase solution ever work if it didn’t involve instance split. There is no satisfaction in fighting the same enemies among those with lower difficulty with 0 incentives other than mediocre gold increase and purple (worthless) drops.

It’s absolutely killing any incentive (at least for this content) to create different builds and master them. It doesn’t motivate to engage in such system by anyone other than diehard fans.

If this problem ever to be addressed it should be done in a meaningful way: where combat engaging for both parties, rewarding and satisfying with clear progression from normal to veteran. Not as the punishment for being more competitive, combat oriented player, who is there to provide some awkward illusion that game isn’t dead.

"Split the playerbase" is not a solution, it's just a function of an implementation of a solution. So what is your plan to improve things once a player chooses their server? What are the metrics by which you create your ideal challenge scenario? How does this serve all players?

What this will do is confuse players, lead to further dissatisfaction and buyer's remorse once the player realizes they've made a mistake and want to move. It doesn't provide flexibility for those who want to try something harder or move between difficulties, which a slider would do. It would lead to emptier zones for everyone because some people would be in one instance while others would be in another. It would discourage grouping because of lower populations for everyone, and grouping would certainly be harder for those who want a challenge because there would be far fewer of us in this new server.

What you're asking ZOS to do is to balance things separately for each server, new server structure, new patching structure, new UI for a server selection screen, an entirely different set of server rules, and most importantly, you're asking them to pay for two separate sets of dedicated servers, including all of the maintenance that entails.

So I have two questions:

1. What are your actual ideas for improving the situation beyond splitting players into multiple instances? I'm talking about an actual method for increasing challenge and player satisfaction. How will this work?

2. What are the real advantages of splitting the playerbase? If we're splitting players by a server line, the benefits have to outweigh the downsides by far.

And while I can understand that you see advantages for yourself and your playstyle, when you make your response, I encourage you to see things from the perspective of Zenimax Online Studios, because that will always be the perspective by which decisions are made.

I don’t see splitting playerbase as bad thing as everyone playing however they enjoy, especially in overland and questing. Over the years I had 0 interactions with others while doing quests and mostly tried to ignore any players I see as I preferred to immerse myself in the story. There is absolutely no value in seeing others in content, designed to be played solo at own pace. PvP without players is nonsense, group PvE solo is completely different experience, but in solo overland questing there would be nothing lost even if it would be completely single player mode. I’d go as far as to say that I would enjoy empty world even more as I see others there rather as annoyances.

This is not a point of view that I think ZOS will find compelling. I solo most content as well, but the "I want an empty world" perspective doesn't seem like it's going to excite a team of MMO developers.

tonyblack wrote: »

As to how it functions it could be hundreds different solutions, easiest one in my opinion would be just toggle normal (current) and veteran mode instance, endure loading screen and start at the beginning of a delve, public dungeon or at the same spot you were before switch in open world. Could make town + areas around world bosses and incursions shared with common chat, so that group content stayed where it is now. There are dozens of split instances in open world or instanced areas already so it is not like it required some extraordinary mega expensive solution some claim it would take.

From there you could get tougher mobs and bosses as the start, so that engaging in combat would actually be immersive as you wouldn’t artificially nerf yourself, then there could be additional enemies, preferably those that spawn in dungeons, with interesting attacks and mechanics, some additional world effects and status effects and so on.

Then you can incentivize it with achievements, titles and maybe a couple cool collectibles, so it would make it actually rewarding and satisfying experience.

So to summarize, what you're asking for is a (practically) single-player instanced experience with dungeon-level monsters and a reward system that provides you with titles and collectibles. It's a little confusing that you want titles and collectibles if you also want a practically solo game, because what's the point of all of this stuff if you're the only one that's ever going to see it? The main point of these rewards is to show off, to let other people know that you did that thing (or you bought that thing). I can appreciate that there is an aesthetic interest in having your character sorted exactly how you like it, but let's be honest, you want players to see it.

I understand the desire for more complex enemy behavior but it's not going to happen. ZOS would have to rebuild every single overland encounter in the game to accommodate these updated monsters and spend an inordinate amount of time rebalancing everything, and we know that they have no interest in refreshing old content, especially for the fraction of players who want this. On top of that, the way you're setting up instanced areas sounds like it would cause issues, primarily to do with how monsters interact with the instance barrier and how that would affect the experience for players on both sides. It's troublesome for a number of reasons, it's high-effort, it's anti-group, and all for a minority of the population. I'm sorry, but it's a non-starter.

colossalvoids

disky wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

Not sure what servers you're referring to as it's about instancing. One instance having world boss dead while the other have him spawned, one instance having bunch of 20k hp bandits pack spawned and the other have 120k hp ones instead as they're sharing the same spawn location but a different ruleset for their appearance. It's the same mob, but stats and ability set is tweaked numerically or altered in manner how vet content does it already gating some mechanics behind further increased difficulty. And it's not like it needs anything new, add an archer take aim from BRP and that's already an opponent you're tracking constantly instead of just mauling stuff mindlessly.

IMO their chance to satisfy playerbase with a simple slider long gone, it's not 2021 anymore and there's serious competition for players time on a market, time of simple ways outs are gone and any half-baked solutions have a high chances to flop entirely. Look at Scribing, it would be a huge win like four or six years ago, now it's almost forgotten after literally just being launched. Even home tours could work but if those were a part of CWC or at least Murkmire. Not going to argue about it but that's my opinion, landscape is changing and chances are slipping. I'm not waiting for anything personally as I just broke my addiction to ESO and enjoying it casually from time to time doing dungeons primarily but to become a main game again it should go miles above and beyond with all the direct and indirect competitors around. "Realistic", "simple" and "cheap" solution are cute but those aren't bringing much people back seeing amount of effort not spent there.

"Realistic" doesn't only encompass costs, it's also about player interest and demographics. Those of us who want things to change are in the minority right now, and we have to keep in mind that in order to justify the costs of creating a new instance with new rules, adding abilities to monsters, and maintaining all of this for the life of the game, it has to be worthwhile to ZOS. For every player who thinks this is a great idea, there are four or five who don't care or actively dislike the idea. So while you think a big move like this is the only path to success for ZOS, your perception is clouded by your desire for that change. ZOS can please many people with far less effort, and when we ask them for something, we have to do it with the knowledge that we aren't the majority demographic and we have to understand that their time and effort is limited.

Ah now I understand your position on it lot better. I obviously agree on a minority part, but don't agree on a conclusion so to say. This game runs on different kinds of minorities, be it multiplayer lovers, dungeon runners, trial runners, RP enjoyers, PvPers etc. and all/some things combined. I'd even argue that people willing to experience harder base game should be way, way bigger minority group than PvP and hardcore PvE groups combined due to it's focus on making story and environment impactful and consequential, where narrative matches the gameplay more or less. Generally I expect developers to put thought and work into what they create, this is no different here.

It doesn't really matter as they never asked us for solutions or implementation, only about issues we're having.

disky

colossalvoids wrote: »

disky wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

Not sure what servers you're referring to as it's about instancing. One instance having world boss dead while the other have him spawned, one instance having bunch of 20k hp bandits pack spawned and the other have 120k hp ones instead as they're sharing the same spawn location but a different ruleset for their appearance. It's the same mob, but stats and ability set is tweaked numerically or altered in manner how vet content does it already gating some mechanics behind further increased difficulty. And it's not like it needs anything new, add an archer take aim from BRP and that's already an opponent you're tracking constantly instead of just mauling stuff mindlessly.

IMO their chance to satisfy playerbase with a simple slider long gone, it's not 2021 anymore and there's serious competition for players time on a market, time of simple ways outs are gone and any half-baked solutions have a high chances to flop entirely. Look at Scribing, it would be a huge win like four or six years ago, now it's almost forgotten after literally just being launched. Even home tours could work but if those were a part of CWC or at least Murkmire. Not going to argue about it but that's my opinion, landscape is changing and chances are slipping. I'm not waiting for anything personally as I just broke my addiction to ESO and enjoying it casually from time to time doing dungeons primarily but to become a main game again it should go miles above and beyond with all the direct and indirect competitors around. "Realistic", "simple" and "cheap" solution are cute but those aren't bringing much people back seeing amount of effort not spent there.

"Realistic" doesn't only encompass costs, it's also about player interest and demographics. Those of us who want things to change are in the minority right now, and we have to keep in mind that in order to justify the costs of creating a new instance with new rules, adding abilities to monsters, and maintaining all of this for the life of the game, it has to be worthwhile to ZOS. For every player who thinks this is a great idea, there are four or five who don't care or actively dislike the idea. So while you think a big move like this is the only path to success for ZOS, your perception is clouded by your desire for that change. ZOS can please many people with far less effort, and when we ask them for something, we have to do it with the knowledge that we aren't the majority demographic and we have to understand that their time and effort is limited.

Ah now I understand your position on it lot better. I obviously agree on a minority part, but don't agree on a conclusion so to say. This game runs on different kinds of minorities, be it multiplayer lovers, dungeon runners, trial runners, RP enjoyers, PvPers etc. and all/some things combined. I'd even argue that people willing to experience harder base game should be way, way bigger minority group than PvP and hardcore PvE groups combined due to it's focus on making story and environment impactful and consequential, where narrative matches the gameplay more or less. Generally I expect developers to put thought and work into what they create, this is no different here.

It doesn't really matter as they never asked us for solutions or implementation, only about issues we're having.

The game has been around for over ten years and we all have a fair picture of the history of ESO's development. Given what we know, I think we should be setting expectations accordingly. ZOS has to make difficult decisions about how to balance a change against resources including developers, money and time, and they have to consider the sentiment of their entire playerbase as well. I'm not excusing any mistakes they've made, I'm just saying that ambitious ideas like alternative server instances with completely new overland enemy mechanics and server rules take a lot more effort and money thank I think a lot of people realize, and they're far more risky than something like a slider, which would make quite a lot of people happy without the need for all of that effort and risk.

Listen, I would love to see those ideas become reality. I am the kind of person who set Skyrim to max difficulty, then modded it so that it was far more difficult, added survival mechanics and significantly increased the number of enemies in each spawn. I'm not saying I don't want what you want. I'm just saying we have to be realistic about the possibilities available to us.

colossalvoids

disky wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

disky wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

Not sure what servers you're referring to as it's about instancing. One instance having world boss dead while the other have him spawned, one instance having bunch of 20k hp bandits pack spawned and the other have 120k hp ones instead as they're sharing the same spawn location but a different ruleset for their appearance. It's the same mob, but stats and ability set is tweaked numerically or altered in manner how vet content does it already gating some mechanics behind further increased difficulty. And it's not like it needs anything new, add an archer take aim from BRP and that's already an opponent you're tracking constantly instead of just mauling stuff mindlessly.

IMO their chance to satisfy playerbase with a simple slider long gone, it's not 2021 anymore and there's serious competition for players time on a market, time of simple ways outs are gone and any half-baked solutions have a high chances to flop entirely. Look at Scribing, it would be a huge win like four or six years ago, now it's almost forgotten after literally just being launched. Even home tours could work but if those were a part of CWC or at least Murkmire. Not going to argue about it but that's my opinion, landscape is changing and chances are slipping. I'm not waiting for anything personally as I just broke my addiction to ESO and enjoying it casually from time to time doing dungeons primarily but to become a main game again it should go miles above and beyond with all the direct and indirect competitors around. "Realistic", "simple" and "cheap" solution are cute but those aren't bringing much people back seeing amount of effort not spent there.

"Realistic" doesn't only encompass costs, it's also about player interest and demographics. Those of us who want things to change are in the minority right now, and we have to keep in mind that in order to justify the costs of creating a new instance with new rules, adding abilities to monsters, and maintaining all of this for the life of the game, it has to be worthwhile to ZOS. For every player who thinks this is a great idea, there are four or five who don't care or actively dislike the idea. So while you think a big move like this is the only path to success for ZOS, your perception is clouded by your desire for that change. ZOS can please many people with far less effort, and when we ask them for something, we have to do it with the knowledge that we aren't the majority demographic and we have to understand that their time and effort is limited.

Ah now I understand your position on it lot better. I obviously agree on a minority part, but don't agree on a conclusion so to say. This game runs on different kinds of minorities, be it multiplayer lovers, dungeon runners, trial runners, RP enjoyers, PvPers etc. and all/some things combined. I'd even argue that people willing to experience harder base game should be way, way bigger minority group than PvP and hardcore PvE groups combined due to it's focus on making story and environment impactful and consequential, where narrative matches the gameplay more or less. Generally I expect developers to put thought and work into what they create, this is no different here.

It doesn't really matter as they never asked us for solutions or implementation, only about issues we're having.

The game has been around for over ten years and we all have a fair picture of the history of ESO's development. Given what we know, I think we should be setting expectations accordingly. ZOS has to make difficult decisions about how to balance a change against resources including developers, money and time, and they have to consider the sentiment of their entire playerbase as well. I'm not excusing any mistakes they've made, I'm just saying that ambitious ideas like alternative server instances with completely new overland enemy mechanics and server rules take a lot more effort and money thank I think a lot of people realize, and they're far more risky than something like a slider, which would make quite a lot of people happy without the need for all of that effort and risk.

Listen, I would love to see those ideas become reality. I am the kind of person who set Skyrim to max difficulty, then modded it so that it was far more difficult, added survival mechanics and significantly increased the number of enemies in each spawn. I'm not saying I don't want what you want. I'm just saying we have to be realistic about the possibilities available to us.

Yes, we absolutely should look at their track record and see how their actions aren't flying for most people anymore, things they are doing simply aren't enough in the current day. This amount of effort let them to their current position, but it's falling off after people realised that's their limit. New BG's won't make PvP communities reunite and flow back in masses same as simple slider won't anymore. It would fly years back, but sadly for them not today. It would surely satisfy people on forums to the degree, but won't result in any significant gains for zos anyway. I'd rather see them shooting for the stars once in a while and have a fall rather than seeing it stagnate indefinitely.

I was not even thinking you're opposing or confronting me in any way, we just disagree on how companies should handle similar issues due to different experiences. I do not expect zos to take a hard route, not even expecting them to take any really, but I do think that safe way out isn't an option that would help them anymore. It might, depending on how well it's integrated but again looking at their record I have my doubts.

Tldr i don't think it's going to lead to any significant result if they're not willing to put up the work, people are getting way more picky with their entertainment options for various reasons.

disky

colossalvoids wrote: »

disky wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

disky wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

Not sure what servers you're referring to as it's about instancing. One instance having world boss dead while the other have him spawned, one instance having bunch of 20k hp bandits pack spawned and the other have 120k hp ones instead as they're sharing the same spawn location but a different ruleset for their appearance. It's the same mob, but stats and ability set is tweaked numerically or altered in manner how vet content does it already gating some mechanics behind further increased difficulty. And it's not like it needs anything new, add an archer take aim from BRP and that's already an opponent you're tracking constantly instead of just mauling stuff mindlessly.

IMO their chance to satisfy playerbase with a simple slider long gone, it's not 2021 anymore and there's serious competition for players time on a market, time of simple ways outs are gone and any half-baked solutions have a high chances to flop entirely. Look at Scribing, it would be a huge win like four or six years ago, now it's almost forgotten after literally just being launched. Even home tours could work but if those were a part of CWC or at least Murkmire. Not going to argue about it but that's my opinion, landscape is changing and chances are slipping. I'm not waiting for anything personally as I just broke my addiction to ESO and enjoying it casually from time to time doing dungeons primarily but to become a main game again it should go miles above and beyond with all the direct and indirect competitors around. "Realistic", "simple" and "cheap" solution are cute but those aren't bringing much people back seeing amount of effort not spent there.

"Realistic" doesn't only encompass costs, it's also about player interest and demographics. Those of us who want things to change are in the minority right now, and we have to keep in mind that in order to justify the costs of creating a new instance with new rules, adding abilities to monsters, and maintaining all of this for the life of the game, it has to be worthwhile to ZOS. For every player who thinks this is a great idea, there are four or five who don't care or actively dislike the idea. So while you think a big move like this is the only path to success for ZOS, your perception is clouded by your desire for that change. ZOS can please many people with far less effort, and when we ask them for something, we have to do it with the knowledge that we aren't the majority demographic and we have to understand that their time and effort is limited.

Ah now I understand your position on it lot better. I obviously agree on a minority part, but don't agree on a conclusion so to say. This game runs on different kinds of minorities, be it multiplayer lovers, dungeon runners, trial runners, RP enjoyers, PvPers etc. and all/some things combined. I'd even argue that people willing to experience harder base game should be way, way bigger minority group than PvP and hardcore PvE groups combined due to it's focus on making story and environment impactful and consequential, where narrative matches the gameplay more or less. Generally I expect developers to put thought and work into what they create, this is no different here.

It doesn't really matter as they never asked us for solutions or implementation, only about issues we're having.

The game has been around for over ten years and we all have a fair picture of the history of ESO's development. Given what we know, I think we should be setting expectations accordingly. ZOS has to make difficult decisions about how to balance a change against resources including developers, money and time, and they have to consider the sentiment of their entire playerbase as well. I'm not excusing any mistakes they've made, I'm just saying that ambitious ideas like alternative server instances with completely new overland enemy mechanics and server rules take a lot more effort and money thank I think a lot of people realize, and they're far more risky than something like a slider, which would make quite a lot of people happy without the need for all of that effort and risk.

Listen, I would love to see those ideas become reality. I am the kind of person who set Skyrim to max difficulty, then modded it so that it was far more difficult, added survival mechanics and significantly increased the number of enemies in each spawn. I'm not saying I don't want what you want. I'm just saying we have to be realistic about the possibilities available to us.

Yes, we absolutely should look at their track record and see how their actions aren't flying for most people anymore, things they are doing simply aren't enough in the current day. This amount of effort let them to their current position, but it's falling off after people realised that's their limit. New BG's won't make PvP communities reunite and flow back in masses same as simple slider won't anymore. It would fly years back, but sadly for them not today. It would surely satisfy people on forums to the degree, but won't result in any significant gains for zos anyway. I'd rather see them shooting for the stars once in a while and have a fall rather than seeing it stagnate indefinitely.

You're saying "most people" here, but again, we're a minority voice. If it were actually most people who want this I would approach it differently, but we're asking for something among a larger group of people who either don't want or don't care about anything changing, so we have to consider our options in that context.

colossalvoids wrote: »

I was not even thinking you're opposing or confronting me in any way, we just disagree on how companies should handle similar issues due to different experiences. I do not expect zos to take a hard route, not even expecting them to take any really, but I do think that safe way out isn't an option that would help them anymore. It might, depending on how well it's integrated but again looking at their record I have my doubts.

You're welcome to provide your point of view here. I just think we're better served by providing the devs feedback with potential solutions that are achievable and palatable for the larger playerbase.

colossalvoids

About "most people": wasn't talking about people in this exact thread, wasn't even talking about people who want changes or difficulty changes in particular but about the reception for the features zos implemented in recent years. We all seen the feedback on various platforms and how community got just smaller over time.

On solutions part I've been told straight by one of the developers that they're not interested in our solutions, they need to know our "pain points" that were available since day one of this thread. The ball is on their side for years, pretty sure all the data needed was researched years ago and decisions were made, for better or worse for us. We're just discussing things we want between ourselves, it's not like if majority of people in this thread be it us or people hating any semblance of change will council and decide what's appropriate solution for us and them it would be brought into life.

disky

colossalvoids wrote: »

On solutions part I've been told straight by one of the developers that they're not interested in our solutions, they need to know our "pain points" that were available since day one of this thread. The ball is on their side for years, pretty sure all the data needed was researched years ago and decisions were made, for better or worse for us. We're just discussing things we want between ourselves, it's not like if majority of people in this thread be it us or people hating any semblance of change will council and decide what's appropriate solution for us and them it would be brought into life.

Then, respectfully, why are you attempting to provide a solution? If you're so convinced of the futility of being here, why are you here? If we're all just pissing into the wind, why even show up?

I'm here because I believe that discussing something sensible will give the developers impetus to at least consider a real solution, which is why I'm not shooting for the moon with my proposal. I don't believe they'll do exactly what I want them to do, but I am trying my best to give them feedback that they can actually work with. That's why I'm opposing your ideas, because they don't seem like something that's possible or desirable for the dev team.

Theist_VII

@disky I’ve been seeing a lot of naysaying coming from you, I would advise not telling others what they should or shouldn’t expect.

Remember all of the “We need Spellcrafting” ESO threads?

“Spellcrafting would be broken.”
“How would they balance it? It’s impossible.”
“I’ll make a one-shot kill fireball.”
“It’s been 10 years, not happening.”
Every. Single. Page.

Keep in mind that there were people that sounded a lot like how you do in this thread, and I guarantee they choked on their words the second “Scribing” (Spellcrafting 2.0) was announced as our chapter feature. Maybe take smaller bites?

spartaxoxo

IDK when people said they wanted spell crafting I said it would probably be underwhelming and not too powerful, and that's pretty much what we got.

Features aren't what they'd be in a single player. And it's reasonable to manage expectations to what is more likely with a massively multiplayer game

TaSheen

spartaxoxo wrote: »

IDK when people said they wanted spell crafting I said it would probably be underwhelming and not too powerful, and that's pretty much what we got.

Features aren't what they'd be in a single player. And it's reasonable to manage expectations to what is more likely with a massively multiplayer game

Yeah, me too. I wasn't impressed with spellcrafting in the single player titles, and I figured out early on we'd get something watered-down - exactly what happened. And as before, I'm not impressed with scribing any more than I was spellcrafting all those years back.

@disky, you've been a calming refreshing voice in this thread. Thank you.

disky

Theist_VII wrote: »

Maybe take smaller bites?

That's exactly what I'm trying to do, just not in the way you want.

Theist_VII

disky wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

Maybe take smaller bites?

That's exactly what I'm trying to do, just not in the way you want.

I had to give you an awesome there for missing the entire point in incredible fashion.

It’s one thing to say, “I don’t want a change because I believe it will not fix the problem” and an entirely different thing to make presumptions about work load and the depths that the company we’re funding are capable of reaching for us the consumer.

This game is only successful when the developers have a symbiotic relationship with us, so it’s extremely naive to assume that a company that has already done the “impossible” twice with One Tamriel and then Scribing, at two all-time-lows, couldn’t pull a hat trick, as the last addition wasn’t enough to save the declining product.

spartaxoxo

It's not just that it's unrealistic from a resource standpoint though. It also causes problems by splitting the playerbase. And, yes, there are plenty of people already using the current overland that would switch over to a vet one.