Overland Content Feedback Thread

colossalvoids · September 5

disky wrote: »

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.

I'm not providing a solution anymore, I surely did years before. Chimed in yet again here seeing how people ganged up against a person who's idea was different to what couple of people recently had agreed upon e.g. sliders. It's delusional saying it's an ultimate solution that would work for everyone, it's indeed a "capitulation" as they've originally said, people are afraid of sounding their different opinions here which might be attacked (not challenged, but actually attacked) right away by couple users just because those are probably less safe for them. If people want to discuss when they want it's completely fine here, it's a venting thread for some of us at this point.

Yet again, no thread-council or a consensus between couple of people in this forum would help you convince the devs that it's THE solution, so all this attempts to drive off new posters or people who sounding different things would help you achieving it.

disky · September 5

Theist_VII wrote: »

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.

I understood what you were trying to say, I just didn't provide a substantive response because I didn't want to keep talking to you. You're welcome to take your Awesome back.

I didn't buy Gold Road because I'm not supporting the game monetarily until we see substantive change for overland, so I don't know much about scribing, and I've only been playing seriously for a few years without having any knowledge of or interest in the spellcraft issue. However, I do know that as with One Tamriel, scribing is a feature which everyone can benefit from equally. It's not something borne of a large amount of risky, costly dev-hours that only a portion of players will be able to enjoy, and therefore it makes sense to implement, especially as its universal appeal would drive sales of Gold Road.

A vet overland instance has none of that same charm. I would absolutely use it and probably have a great time, but most people wouldn't, and they would be left wondering why ZOS wasted all their effort on it when they don't see any benefit from it. It sounds like you're aware of how the forums tend to be, so I'm sure you can understand the backlash it would certainly cause.

A simple solution is best, for all of the reasons I've already listed over and over. As cool as it would be to have what you want, it's just not feasible, for all of the reasons I've already listed over and over. This is my opinion.

disky · September 5

colossalvoids wrote: »

disky wrote: »

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.

I'm not providing a solution anymore, I surely did years before. Chimed in yet again here seeing how people ganged up against a person who's idea was different to what couple of people recently had agreed upon e.g. sliders. It's delusional saying it's an ultimate solution that would work for everyone, it's indeed a "capitulation" as they've originally said, people are afraid of sounding their different opinions here which might be attacked (not challenged, but actually attacked) right away by couple users just because those are probably less safe for them. If people want to discuss when they want it's completely fine here, it's a venting thread for some of us at this point.

Yet again, no thread-council or a consensus between couple of people in this forum would help you convince the devs that it's THE solution, so all this attempts to drive off new posters or people who sounding different things would help you achieving it.

For what it's worth, I think we've been a lot more cordial recently than you'll see in a lot of other threads in the forum. One time I started a thread about how I would like alternatives for staves because it's kind of silly that they're stored on the back, and man, that thread got unreasonably hostile for no reason.

I'm not trying to attack anyone, I'm just trying to provide my opinion to the contrary because I truly don't think it will work. I don't know how to better approach it, so I'm sorry if I come off as too aggressive. I hope that at least my counterpoints were cogent.

colossalvoids · September 5

disky wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

disky wrote: »

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.

I'm not providing a solution anymore, I surely did years before. Chimed in yet again here seeing how people ganged up against a person who's idea was different to what couple of people recently had agreed upon e.g. sliders. It's delusional saying it's an ultimate solution that would work for everyone, it's indeed a "capitulation" as they've originally said, people are afraid of sounding their different opinions here which might be attacked (not challenged, but actually attacked) right away by couple users just because those are probably less safe for them. If people want to discuss when they want it's completely fine here, it's a venting thread for some of us at this point.

Yet again, no thread-council or a consensus between couple of people in this forum would help you convince the devs that it's THE solution, so all this attempts to drive off new posters or people who sounding different things would help you achieving it.

For what it's worth, I think we've been a lot more cordial recently than you'll see in a lot of other threads in the forum. One time I started a thread about how I would like alternatives for staves because it's kind of silly that they're stored on the back, and man, that thread got unreasonably hostile for no reason.

I'm not trying to attack anyone, I'm just trying to provide my opinion to the contrary because I truly don't think it will work. I don't know how to better approach it, so I'm sorry if I come off as too aggressive. I hope that at least my counterpoints were cogent.

Yeah it's still way better than Steam discussion board lol. I'm just getting triggered to reply here when environment gets too hostile or heated in my opinion, surely a lot of people seem very protective of their ideas or how some of it might affect their gameplay so people going overboard from time to time. But civil discussion of solutions, problems etc. is great as a vent and actually giving some insight into "what the problem is" even if focused on "how to solve it" if you're getting me, like immersion, adventure, danger or engagement being mentioned.

Elsonso · September 5

Theist_VII wrote: »

“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.

I am trying to decide how to frame this in context.

Are you using these as examples of how the community might be wrong about overland and the challenges that the development team and players might face?

If so, keep in mind that the players are rarely consulted about new features, so we sit out here in the forum and entertain ourselves with guesses in the form of fears, worries, hopes, and dreams. The reality of what ZOS does ends up being what ZOS wants to do. It might be great, or it might be disappointing. Usually it is a mix both (based on observed reactions), but it is something they can accomplish within the technical, financial, and resource budget that they have.

disky wrote: »

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.

Like the person above, I have been told directly by a dev that they are looking for problems, not solutions, and that they will come up with the solution to fit the problem that they want to solve. What was said to me is that players do not fully understand the systems and technology, so they don't know what can be done and what will cost too much to do. What sounds like a good solution might be way off base.

Problems presented as solutions require an additional level of analysis. It is necessary to work the solution backwards to see what it is actually solving, and not solving, to find the problem that needs to be fixed, and identify anything that is not a problem and maybe should not be changed.

To that end, I think that this thread provided the entire "problem" definition within the first few pages. I would suggest that nothing really new has been added to the "problem" for a very very long time. Given that new people enter into this thread, I find that interesting.

As for solutions, that debate still goes on, but I see it mainly as entertainment for the people in the forum. Discussing and debating the merits of various solutions is a thing, even if ZOS isn't super interested in that content. For all I know, someone is still compiling what is said in here for possible use by the devs, but I would not be surprised if they stopped doing that two years ago. This discussion is not a nursery for emerging ideas.

Still, it can be entertaining to discuss the pros and cons of different ideas and express what is liked and disliked about them.

colossalvoids · September 5

Elsonso wrote: »

disky wrote: »

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.

To that end, I think that this thread provided the entire "problem" definition within the first few pages. I would suggest that nothing really new has been added to the "problem" for a very very long time. Given that new people enter into this thread, I find that interesting.

As for solutions, that debate still goes on, but I see it mainly as entertainment for the people in the forum. Discussing and debating the merits of various solutions is a thing, even if ZOS isn't super interested in that content. For all I know, someone is still compiling what is said in here for possible use by the devs, but I would not be surprised if they stopped doing that two years ago. This discussion is not a nursery for emerging ideas.

Thank for putting it in a better words that I was probably not able to due to language barrier.

disky · September 5

Elsonso wrote: »

Like the person above, I have been told directly by a dev that they are looking for problems, not solutions, and that they will come up with the solution to fit the problem that they want to solve. What was said to me is that players do not fully understand the systems and technology, so they don't know what can be done and what will cost too much to do. What sounds like a good solution might be way off base.

That's exactly correct. I don't understand the troubles ZOS will run into during development, but I do at least understand some of the more fundamental issues they'll encounter in managing the project, which is why I've been trying to make them plain to those asking for a more complex solution.

I'm sure they have their own ideas because it's their job. What's important to me is that we distill the most sensible option through discussion and present it as a community to the devs as something we want. That's why, when someone pitches an idea that may be disruptive in some way, I try to show the flaws in their proposal. I want the best idea to be the prevailing one in the community, and I want ZOS to see it as such.

I do also hope we can provide an idea or two every now and then. The devs aren't perfect by any means. "We're not looking for solutions" is understandable given how many terrible ideas we have in the community, but I still think it's important to listen for the occasional good one, and failing to address community outcry has caused many games to lose quite a lot of money. I feel like overland challenge is this kind of problem.

Elsonso wrote: »

As for solutions, that debate still goes on, but I see it mainly as entertainment for the people in the forum. Discussing and debating the merits of various solutions is a thing, even if ZOS isn't super interested in that content.

Believe it or not, I don't actually want to be here. I'm not someone who spends time on forums because they're often toxic and a reflection of the worst a community has to offer. I keep coming back because I love the game and I know that it's missing something important and I want it to improve. Once we get some kind of reasonable change, you will probably never hear from me again.

Elsonso wrote: »

This discussion is not a nursery for emerging ideas.

Mostly no, but it's a way for us to present the idea we have and tell the people who make the game what we want. We just have to keep putting it forth and defending it and showing that it's the best idea, both to detractors and to ourselves, and hopefully, at least someone will listen, for our sake and for the sake of the game.

Muizer · September 5

Elsonso wrote: »

Problems presented as solutions require an additional level of analysis. It is necessary to work the solution backwards to see what it is actually solving, and not solving, to find the problem that needs to be fixed, and identify anything that is not a problem and maybe should not be changed.

I agree, up to a point anyway. Proposing a difficulty slider is, taken at face value, like proposing a magic wand, because it only evokes a UI element and as long as you don't go into what exactly it should do everyone can imagine it will bring them what they seek. This is very unhelpful for developers and adding it is 'simple' doesn't make it so.

Elsonso wrote: »

To that end, I think that this thread provided the entire "problem" definition within the first few pages. I would suggest that nothing really new has been added to the "problem" for a very very long time. Given that new people enter into this thread, I find that interesting.

I have to disagree here. The reverse engineering from solution to problem that you mentioned has already lead to some refinements beyond the initial problem.

We know a slider presumes the configurations of the encounters stay as they are, with any scaling happening across the board.

Conversely separate Veteran instances would be the go to solution if it were necessary to change the configuration of the encounters.

Then there are solutions that have been alluded to as ZOS' way of addressing overland difficulty like IA and Bastion Nymics that no matter how creative you get in 'reverse engineering' the problem don't lead to an overland problem being addressed.

The only thing I recall having been added that could be construed as addressing overland difficulty are the wandering bosses (since Blackwood?). But if I reverse engineer that 'problem' I get something like "we need more (varied) challenging content in overland". That might work for some, but I suspect by 'challenging overland" most of us want it from the existing encounters or at the very least as an aspect of the existing questing experience.

Elsonso wrote: »

This discussion is not a nursery for emerging ideas.

For what it's worth I don't believe in campaigning on a forum to get something into the game. Then again, whoever reads this can't un-read it. Perhaps way down the line the dormant seed will germinate.

disky · September 6

Muizer wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Problems presented as solutions require an additional level of analysis. It is necessary to work the solution backwards to see what it is actually solving, and not solving, to find the problem that needs to be fixed, and identify anything that is not a problem and maybe should not be changed.

I agree, up to a point anyway. Proposing a difficulty slider is, taken at face value, like proposing a magic wand, because it only evokes a UI element and as long as you don't go into what exactly it should do everyone can imagine it will bring them what they seek. This is very unhelpful for developers and adding it is 'simple' doesn't make it so.

Yeah, but the thing is, we have discussed the finer details numerous times. I think implying that we're all out here asking for something undefined is a little disingenuous (not that I'm laying that on you). I'm always happy to provide my ideas regarding the specifics if it comes up in the conversation.

TaSheen · September 6

@Muizer - I just wanted to tell you....

I LOVE YOUR SIG. Truer words were never posted....

disky wrote: »

Yeah, but the thing is, we have discussed the finer details numerous times. I think implying that we're all out here asking for something undefined is a little disingenuous (not that I'm laying that on you). I'm always happy to provide my ideas regarding the specifics if it comes up in the conversation.

I think that's very true. And I also think it's part of the whole "just tell us the pain points/problems; we don't want players doing solutions" thing.

The bottom line for me really is: I don't have a solution at all, so the devs don't have to worry about that aspect from me. I have a "pain point/problem" if and only if the ramping up of overland difficulty (to the point where, since Galen, I really can't have fun in overland because I'm having to watch out for "gotchas" no matter what I'm doing) continues. And honestly.... there will be things I will still do and enjoy - but it won't be questing in new content, and it will be cutting back my activities (surveys, exploration, etc) in overland.

Since what I love most is overland and story quests.... well, y'know? There will come a point where I'll just sit in base game and DLC content before High Isle/Galen until I just can't find enough to keep me occupied, and then I'll leave 4 accounts behind.

I'm only one person, so I don't expect the devs(or anyone else) to care.... But the people who keep insisting on ramping difficulty overall instead of with a slider.... well, that's really unfortunate - because I'm not saying overland HAS to be my way. I'm saying a slider or other optional harder setup is fine with me. In other words, I care about those of you who find overland distasteful because it's too easy; but there's a lot of people out there who just tell me "Get good"....

Theist_VII · September 6

TaSheen wrote: »

I'm only one person, so I don't expect the devs(or anyone else) to care.... But the people who keep insisting on ramping difficulty overall instead of with a slider.... well, that's really unfortunate - because I'm not saying overland HAS to be my way. I'm saying a slider or other optional harder setup is fine with me. In other words, I care about those of you who find overland distasteful because it's too easy; but there's a lot of people out there who just tell me "Get good"....

Here’s something for the confusion, smarter AI with the addition of a difficulty slider would imply an easier difficulty than what is current paired with an AI update.

Not worse rewards.

Just that the new standard mode would be Story, and enemies would be weaker to balance out a more mechanical experience, allowing anyone, and I mean that, ANYONE can experience the full story of the game, if that’s what they are solely interested in.

As far back as I care to read, I don’t see many people advocating for just smarter AI and a harder experience, period, so I’m lost as to where the quoted paragraph you wrote came from.

TaSheen · September 6

@Theist_VII - that goes back to when this whole thread actually started - some of those who were very pointed in their attacks on not just me but others of similar situations (including some who stated unequivocally that those of us with health issues, or older, or with diagnosed disabilities should just quit playing instead of being "catered to") haven't been back to this thread in quite a while - and some of the nastier posts got removed.

Altogether, my feeling about it from the three years I've been reading (and a couple of years posting) is that there are probably still quite a few people who just want the entire thing ramped up to extreme difficulty, but they've quit posting because they either can tell from what was said in a stream or two that that's not really likely - or they've left the game - or they got tired of being "modded out". I recognize a couple of them who do still post, naming no names as that's not really very nice and also counter-productive.

I really hope that the devs decide to do something serious regarding at least a slider because I get the feeling they're not really interested in making a whole "veteran overland by instance".

Elsonso · September 6

TaSheen wrote: »

I really hope that the devs decide to do something serious regarding at least a slider because I get the feeling they're not really interested in making a whole "veteran overland by instance".

I think that veteran overland instances would be seen as "going backwards", which comes from the statements that Slashlurk made on his stream a few times where they "did that already" and the players didn't want it. There was some push back to him saying that, but I think those missed the bigger picture in that Slashlurk was probably very correct in his assessment.

I still find myself wondering whether even a slider is worth their effort. I know a lot of people around here like the idea, myself included if it also allows overland to be easier than it is today, but we are just the forum. I think they know their player base better than any of us in here. If they thought that adding a slider would result in enough additional revenue and sufficiently more engagement, my feeling is that they would have done it already, or would at least be working on it. I am not saying that they are greedy for revenue, but bills do have to be paid, so that has to be taken into consideration.

disky · September 6

Elsonso wrote: »

If they thought that adding a slider would result in enough additional revenue and sufficiently more engagement, my feeling is that they would have done it already, or would at least be working on it. I am not saying that they are greedy for revenue, but bills do have to be paid, so that has to be taken into consideration.

Would they have, though? I mean, we've gotten plenty of features which I doubt drive revenue, like home tours, for instance. It's a nice feature, but it wasn't something I expected, I don't know if it was even advertised, and I wouldn't say it improves the core gameplay experience. Far be it from me to tell ZOS where to place their priorities, but it seems like directly addressing overland challenge would be a more financially prudent use of their staff, even if it is for a minority of the community. People leave the game because of this, and I don't think anyone has left the game because it lacked a way to easily view player housing.

Amethyst_Unearthed · September 6

i wish i could unfollow this thread.... i regret commenting awhile back.... no need to tag me or reply cuz i am bombarded with dozens of notifications from this i already dont ready cuz im anoyed

spartaxoxo · September 6

Amethyst_Unearthed wrote: »

i wish i could unfollow this thread.... i regret commenting awhile back.... no need to tag me or reply cuz i am bombarded with dozens of notifications from this i already dont ready cuz im anoyed

You can unfollow it

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/profile/preferences/

Vogtard · September 20

Although I like pvp the most, overland is important to me and I enjoyed it a lot before One Tamriel. Later I decided to stop playing it entirely because it's a waste of excellent content, and await the times when it's challenging and enjoyable again. With the poor state of the game in terms of pvp, I lost interest overall.
My preference is to do some pve while waiting in a BG queue. I suppose IA could serve as that activity although I'm not sure if it's possible to do BGs from there due to the needed sync with the rounds. Overland is continuous.

The attention to pvp in 44 sparked my interest in returning to ESO though. I also heard that they're focusing on systems more than stories now, which I think is an excellent decision. I suppose overland could be made interesting as one of these clever systems, even making it infinite with decent rewards, e.g. as a rotating Cadwell's quest like NG+.

Sadly, after over 200 pages of this topic, not much has changed and I can only bump this topic.

Muizer · September 20

I think a toggle might be workable, so I would endorse it.

However, tbh I think I would prefer a new kind of content. It would have to be story content though, not just some boss-type enemies wandering around overland aimlessly that you can safely ignore.

What I'd find very appealing is the idea of the Morag Tong or some such having accepted a contract to murder you, resulting in assassins popping up in unexpected places. They could implement the IA idea of making them harder the more you manage to defeat and possibly add interesting ways of 'resetting' the mechanism by tracking down whoever placed the contract.

TaSheen · September 20

Muizer wrote: »

I think a toggle might be workable, so I would endorse it.

However, tbh I think I would prefer a new kind of content. It would have to be story content though, not just some boss-type enemies wandering around overland aimlessly that you can safely ignore.

What I'd find very appealing is the idea of the Morag Tong or some such having accepted a contract to murder you, resulting in assassins popping up in unexpected places. They could implement the IA idea of making them harder the more you manage to defeat and possibly add interesting ways of 'resetting' the mechanism by tracking down whoever placed the contract.

So that would be opt-in? I would hate that sort of thing personally, but if it was added as opt-in it would be fine - because there may be a lot of people who would enjoy it at least somewhat. [Well, I did hate it in Skyrim.... though it wasn't egregious.]

Muizer · September 20

TaSheen wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

I think a toggle might be workable, so I would endorse it.

However, tbh I think I would prefer a new kind of content. It would have to be story content though, not just some boss-type enemies wandering around overland aimlessly that you can safely ignore.

What I'd find very appealing is the idea of the Morag Tong or some such having accepted a contract to murder you, resulting in assassins popping up in unexpected places. They could implement the IA idea of making them harder the more you manage to defeat and possibly add interesting ways of 'resetting' the mechanism by tracking down whoever placed the contract.

So that would be opt-in? I would hate that sort of thing personally, but if it was added as opt-in it would be fine - because there may be a lot of people who would enjoy it at least somewhat. [Well, I did hate it in Skyrim.... though it wasn't egregious.]

First of all I very much doubt ZOS want to create such targeted encounters. I suggested something like it at one of the panels at the Amsterdam get together and the devs there didn't sound keen. Anyway, If I were to design it, I would possibly create a quest for a first run-through, with a nice story line and all that. Bit like DB and thieves guild. I suppose you could call that 'opt-in' though a lot of people would no doubt feel 'forced' into it the moment it comes with achievements or rewards, but IMHO that's their problem. Anyway, after an opening story line, there would be other specific things you could do to trigger this. It could be tied into justice, or the existing quest lines. And yes that could be opt in and customizable. I think that would be cool because it could revitalize a lot of existing content.

TaSheen · September 20

Muizer wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

I think a toggle might be workable, so I would endorse it.

However, tbh I think I would prefer a new kind of content. It would have to be story content though, not just some boss-type enemies wandering around overland aimlessly that you can safely ignore.

What I'd find very appealing is the idea of the Morag Tong or some such having accepted a contract to murder you, resulting in assassins popping up in unexpected places. They could implement the IA idea of making them harder the more you manage to defeat and possibly add interesting ways of 'resetting' the mechanism by tracking down whoever placed the contract.

So that would be opt-in? I would hate that sort of thing personally, but if it was added as opt-in it would be fine - because there may be a lot of people who would enjoy it at least somewhat. [Well, I did hate it in Skyrim.... though it wasn't egregious.]

First of all I very much doubt ZOS want to create such targeted encounters. I suggested something like it at one of the panels at the Amsterdam get together and the devs there didn't sound keen. Anyway, If I were to design it, I would possibly create a quest for a first run-through, with a nice story line and all that. Bit like DB and thieves guild. I suppose you could call that 'opt-in' though a lot of people would no doubt feel 'forced' into it the moment it comes with achievements or rewards, but IMHO that's their problem. Anyway, after an opening story line, there would be other specific things you could do to trigger this. It could be tied into justice, or the existing quest lines. And yes that could be opt in and customizable. I think that would be cool because it could revitalize a lot of existing content.

Okay then! That's actually one of the better ideas I've read so far in this entire thread! It would be for me just like both TG and DB - I don't do them, and wouldn't do one like your idea either.

Just for info - I'm more than likely not to EVER run out of things to do in this game (7 years in, hasn't happened yet), so I'm just not looking for "additions/improvements" much less more difficult anything.

Dahveed · September 21

Muizer wrote: »

I think a toggle might be workable, so I would endorse it.

However, tbh I think I would prefer a new kind of content. It would have to be story content though, not just some boss-type enemies wandering around overland aimlessly that you can safely ignore.

What I'd find very appealing is the idea of the Morag Tong or some such having accepted a contract to murder you, resulting in assassins popping up in unexpected places. They could implement the IA idea of making them harder the more you manage to defeat and possibly add interesting ways of 'resetting' the mechanism by tracking down whoever placed the contract.

They already have these encounters in the game, though. There are small pockets of mini Oblivion gates, for example, where undead appear which you can kill, then they are replaced by a mini-boss (like a lich or something) which you whack like a loot pinata.

It's a neat concept but IMO falls completely flat in its execution. They don't "surprise" you or pose any threat, they just appear and then stand there waiting for you to decimate them.

Partly it's because they're a complete faceroll (like everything else in overland), but also because of the implementation. They announce their arrival with really obvious visual and aural cues, have a very pathetic detection/aggro range, and can be completely ignored as if they were a fricken Nirnroot.

Encounters like these need to be more impactful, spontaneous, and feel dangerous. If they just put some Morag Tong skin on an already existing mechanic that already exists, it would just be another bland, boring and extremely forgettable thing that happens every four seconds in overland.

Overland, in my mind, stresses quantity over quality.. in just about every aspect. There is junk everywhere, but none of it feels meaningful to me because it's all hum-drum repetition. Too many treasure chests, too many materials, too many "encounters" (bandits, vampires, beasts, daedra etc) just rinced and repeated which pose no threat and provide no thrill.

For example, I'd rather find one treasure chest every three days and feel a chill down my spine as my fingers shake trying and perhaps even failing to open it, and then get something cool... rather than what we have now, finding like 13 treasure chests every hour lying around the zone like discarded trash which nothing but the same repetitive, scripted junk over and over again. There is no thrill whatsoever finding a treasure chest.

So yeah... their implementation of a "morag tong assassin team" trying to kill me would be identical. Oh look, more loot pinatas I can completely ignore, or mush into paste within 2 seconds to take their crap. Yawn.

There needs to be real danger and real spontaneity in the overland.

Duke_Falcon · September 21

I'd like to see Overland sets provide a Heavy Uniquely named Chest pc, and a Light Uniquely name waist for all sets, just to help with optimizing build diversity thru weights. I'd actually like to see this for all sets in the game.

Muizer · September 21

Dahveed wrote: »

There needs to be real danger and real spontaneity in the overland.

I agree that if ZOS were to implement my suggestion the way you suggest it would not really add much. Spawned enemies would actually have to appear unexpectedly and engage. Their strength should also ramp up from one engagement to the next. That's where the increased challenge would have to come from.

disky · September 24

Dahveed wrote: »

There needs to be real danger and real spontaneity in the overland.

We are all Quark in this moment. If only ZOS had Garak's conviction.
https://youtu.be/nUo8W_tbGtE?feature=shared&t=76

disky · September 24

I agree that dynamism would be a huge boon for the overland experience, but a challenge increase (option) has to come first or it doesn't mean much. As it has already been said, if we're trampling over everything then no amount of surprise will matter. It would just be another nuisance to brush aside.

Franchise408 · September 24

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Infinite Archive shows the mobs already have mechs that feel entirely different when you actually have to pay attention to them. A LOTR style slider is all that is needed.

It's unrealistic and unnecessary to expect them to redo the whole game and keep doing it every chapter they ever release. Not to mention the game needs people playing together. Player separation isn't a good thing.

Again, the argument of "the game needs people playing together" only counts when the content actually needs people doing it together.

Overland content does not need teamwork. Hell, it barely even needs a conscious human being at the keyboard.

I will never, never ever group with anyone in overland content. Never. I am not playing "with" anybody when I am in the overland. I am already separated from the rest of the playerbase because there is zero reason for me to play with anyone in the overland.

If there were a vet instance that provided a challenge, people actually would need to work together. That would actually bring people together.

spartaxoxo · September 24

Franchise408 wrote: »

I will never, never ever group with anyone in overland content. Never. I am not playing "with" anybody when I am in the overland. I am already separated from the rest of the playerbase because there is zero reason for me to play with anyone in the overland.

You are not. Others are playing with randoms. I have helped plenty of random players I came across while doing overland who needed it. And the vast majority of the playerbase is using overland.

If someone isn't using overland currently, then that's obviously not who is getting separated. It is vet players who DO use overland, that would be separated from new players. This makes it hard for them to find friends and guilds, receive help, or even understand that the game is still alive.

I know for a 100% fact players like this exist because I am literally one of them.

Stafford197 · September 24

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Infinite Archive shows the mobs already have mechs that feel entirely different when you actually have to pay attention to them. A LOTR style slider is all that is needed.

It's unrealistic and unnecessary to expect them to redo the whole game and keep doing it every chapter they ever release. Not to mention the game needs people playing together. Player separation isn't a good thing.

Again, the argument of "the game needs people playing together" only counts when the content actually needs people doing it together.

Overland content does not need teamwork. Hell, it barely even needs a conscious human being at the keyboard.

I will never, never ever group with anyone in overland content. Never. I am not playing "with" anybody when I am in the overland. I am already separated from the rest of the playerbase because there is zero reason for me to play with anyone in the overland.

If there were a vet instance that provided a challenge, people actually would need to work together. That would actually bring people together.

Usually the response people would reply to you with is that original Craglorn was exactly what you’re talking about, yet it ended up as a dead zone.

To which I’d say, Craglorn was a dead zone for every reason except the raw difficulty.
• Storyline involved forced group content
• Many dungeons and Zone events involved forced group content
• Zone landscape is bland compared to almost any other zone
• On Console, we didn’t even have an opportunity to visit Craglorn because we were playing the tons of other content in the game, and progressing through Cadwell’s Veteran Zones. I didn’t even know Craglorn existed before it changed in the One Tamriel update!

But also… it’s way too late to add Vet Zones or alter gameplay. The game is 10 years old. If any sort of difficulty were to be added, IMO it can only happen via an optional difficulty slider which just places self-debuffs onto your character (aka, PvE Battle Spirit).

Franchise408 · September 24

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

I will never, never ever group with anyone in overland content. Never. I am not playing "with" anybody when I am in the overland. I am already separated from the rest of the playerbase because there is zero reason for me to play with anyone in the overland.

You are not. Others are playing with randoms. I have helped plenty of random players I came across while doing overland who needed it. And the vast majority of the playerbase is using overland.

If someone isn't using overland currently, then that's obviously not who is getting separated. It is vet players who DO use overland, that would be separated from new players. This makes it hard for them to find friends and guilds, receive help, or even understand that the game is still alive.

I know for a 100% fact players like this exist because I am literally one of them.

And those people that do that can stay in their preferred instance and play together, while those of us who want a challenge can go to our instance and play the way we want.