Overland Content Feedback Thread

XomRhoK

hafgood wrote: »

How hard is hard? One person's hard is another person's easy. So the problem that i see is a harder overland is still going to be seen as easy by those who one shot everything, Double health? 2 hits, makes no difference to then.

Difficulty sliders is the answer.
For example, i want to be able to make overland content harder, but slightly. If ZOS just introduce veteran overland, more like in dungeons, i will not play it, because it will be too hard and exhausting for me.

XomRhoK

hafgood wrote: »

People want a challenge (at least they claim they do) so a dedicated challenging zone would fit the brief and enable Zos to gauge the interest in it. Yet as soon as I suggest this people want it watered down.

I, at least, and, i think, many others don't want a challenge in overland questing we want fight with enemies were like a fight, not like a 1 second annihilation. Or for tank builds, for example, to enemies were a threat, so you can't just ignore their powerful attacks and red circles. Don't think anyone want fights become exhausting and annoying.

summ0004

XomRhoK wrote: »

hafgood wrote: »

People want a challenge (at least they claim they do) so a dedicated challenging zone would fit the brief and enable Zos to gauge the interest in it. Yet as soon as I suggest this people want it watered down.

I, at least, and, i think, many others don't want a challenge in overland questing we want fight with enemies were like a fight, not like a 1 second annihilation. Or for tank builds, for example, to enemies were a threat, so you can't just ignore their powerful attacks and red circles. Don't think anyone want fights become exhausting and annoying.

True. Not everyone wants a life and death encounter when fighting a mud crab, but at the same time it would be good to at least take some damage if you dont roll dodge or block and you actually have to use a few abilities to kill mobs.

spartaxoxo

hafgood wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I really doubt they'll ever make a vet overland, but if they do I think it should be tuned around the same level of VVH. I don't see a point in doing something like Crag level difficulty. That place is a total face roll for even only slightly above average players. VVH has nothing that's unsoloable but is decently hard and has a lot of mechs.

People want a challenge (at least they claim they do) so a dedicated challenging zone would fit the brief and enable Zos to gauge the interest in it. Yet as soon as I suggest this people want it watered down.

Seems to me people want more rewards for little extra work, rather than the extra work they claim they want.

And surely Crag level difficulty is exactly what's needed, let's see the harder overland crew proof how good they are and how active they can make a zone dedicated to their needs. And if they can't then it shows that what's said on the forums is all hot air.

Vvh is harder than Crag though? If it's gonna be challenging should be a real challenge imo

Toxic_Hemlock

XomRhoK wrote: »

hafgood wrote: »

People want a challenge (at least they claim they do) so a dedicated challenging zone would fit the brief and enable Zos to gauge the interest in it. Yet as soon as I suggest this people want it watered down.

I, at least, and, i think, many others don't want a challenge in overland questing we want fight with enemies were like a fight, not like a 1 second annihilation. Or for tank builds, for example, to enemies were a threat, so you can't just ignore their powerful attacks and red circles. Don't think anyone want fights become exhausting and annoying.

As I said earlier, the players make up all different shades of the rainbow as far as their preferred difficulty. Some want VHM level of difficulty overland, something I could not do or would NOT find fun. Others want just tougher bosses; this I could get behind, but again we are or differing minds of just HOW difficult.

As you can clearly see with the sheer amount of different opinions it becomes very difficult to find a consensus. Adding to this the approximated dev time (none of us know the exact amount needed) and it becomes even more muddy. An easy/quick
less dev intense fix has been discussed in a hobbling food or as I suggested to remove all CP from being used overland.

From a strictly personal point of view, I believe we should treat overland like we should a treat a community though. Catering to the lowest abled first (something we currently have) and let the others have an option to increase their own difficulty so long as it does not take away a ton of dev time doing so.

Sylvermynx

summ0004 wrote: »

XomRhoK wrote: »

hafgood wrote: »

People want a challenge (at least they claim they do) so a dedicated challenging zone would fit the brief and enable Zos to gauge the interest in it. Yet as soon as I suggest this people want it watered down.

I, at least, and, i think, many others don't want a challenge in overland questing we want fight with enemies were like a fight, not like a 1 second annihilation. Or for tank builds, for example, to enemies were a threat, so you can't just ignore their powerful attacks and red circles. Don't think anyone want fights become exhausting and annoying.

True. Not everyone wants a life and death encounter when fighting a mud crab, but at the same time it would be good to at least take some damage if you dont roll dodge or block and you actually have to use a few abilities to kill mobs.

Ping gets seriously in the way of roll dodge and even block sometimes - which is why I'm not in favor of non-optional mechanics, because I won't be able to stay alive with high ping. Optional somehow? Fine. As for "at least some damage" - my characters take a LOT of damage from 1-3 mobs, and die regularly to over 3....

TequilaFire

Most overland bosses have at least 1.8M health so I think claims of "one shot" boss kills are a little exaggerated.
Please show me a build that can do 1.8M damage in a one shot.
As to other overland mobs they are set at varying levels of difficulty just as you would expect, a mud crab should not be as strong as a troll.
Overland could use some strong sweeper bosses to add some excitement and challenge which would be easier to implement. Dark fissures could be buffed some as well adding some more random challenge.
I don't think ZOS has to get so drastic to add some more challenge to overland so they don't alienate the normal casual player.

SilverBride

@ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_Kevin

May we please get some feedback on overland difficulty and hear where ZOS stands on the subject?

Franchise408

Are we still citing that Rich quote?

The same Rich who thinks there is nothing wrong with the Random BG queue that only procs DM's even tho people are queue'ing in the non DM only queue?

[snip]
[edited for rude/insulting comment]

Seminolegirl1992

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Well..problem with that is even without cp the game is laughable. I don't have higher than a level ten character on my pc eu account and I can fist fight things to death. Of course no cp on that account either since it's the other server

Must be nice. I can't even begin to fathom that, much less approach it on my characters.

I'm not saying that to shame others. I know there are players who have the godslayer title...one I wish I had the skill to get. Maybe one day. There is widespread diversity concerning player skill. Some can have an insanely high light attack/weave ratio without missing a beat (and get 95k+ dps), and there's folks like me who definitely don't have that sort of coordination but fairly decent in trials nonetheless (70s to 85k dps range- which is surprisingly a huge difference when it comes to score pushing and trifectas), and there's folks who have arthritis or carpal tunnel and such a thing is painful (heck when I try hard in trials my wrists get so sore, and I'm only 29). I can't fathom 100k+ dps...I don't think I will ever reach that. At least not any time soon. I've surprised myself before though. I used to think I couldn't do vMA, or get the master angler title, yet here I am
Everyone should have the option to play at their own pace and difficulty because there's such a wide array of skill. No shame in that. My main thing in the game is roleplay/housing- most of my friends *never* participate in anything veteran

Seminolegirl1992

spartaxoxo wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

How is 'data' gathered from 1.0 relevant when we're on version 7.1? Hell, how is that 'data' relevant past the relaunch of the game (v2.6)?[/b]

Because y'all keep bringing it up to say that the data about back then is wrong. If you want to say he's doing revisionist history back then, then it bears stating that no he isn't. And showcasing the type of feedback he heard which explicitly cited difficulty as an issue.

Outdated? Sure. But that's a goalpost move. What I was specifically addressing was that his quote is revisionist.

Of course we keep bringing it up because that's the quote consistently thrown at us when we've cited a ton of other reasons why it was unpopular. I would gladly look at new data regarding peoples' interest in vet overland or at the very least instanced vet stories/bosses because of how much the game has changed in 7 years. Our points are valid....the game is extremely different from what it used to be. It's understandable why the harder difficulty was hated in Cadwell zones due to a myriad of reasons as have been previously stated and explained. We see the quote, and have responded with counter arguments. I would be curious how popular a vet overland would be in the game as it is now, with vastly improved zones, storylines, 1T, etc. How they implement testing peoples' interest is unknown, but I suspect a pinned thread is at the very least a starting attempt to gauge it. 24+ pages with a lot of affirmatives is telling, but we cannot truly know without more of the player base, most of whom don't use the forums, offering their ideas. If Rich came to me today and said, "New data collected from xyz shows that a severe minority of players want harder overland/story content and thus will not be implemented," I would be disappointed but at least they tried I guess. I think it's large enough to warrant a look, and unfortunately, there are far too many who would offer an opinion in favor of the changes we suggested have already quit and would not participate in a poll or w/e bc they're not around to do so anymore

Seminolegirl1992

Hallothiel wrote: »

I think it's genuinely (and not baiting here) jealousy that they'd not be *good* enough to participate and get more rewards. I mean sure, it's true, but we'd need rewards catered to us for sure.

Nope. Have to really disagree with you here.

Those that want a vet whatever have frequently stated its about the challenge, not the reward. So that should be sufficient. Surely?

Vet versions of dungeons & trials are already part of how they design the game, and the rewards are part of this. But you don’t have to do vet versions to get them - due to the sticker book, you can get the gear in normal versions, and monster heads are available for AP (if have patience, granted).

And personally I am quite capable of doing difficult vet content. But on the whole it bores me.

The gear in normal versions differs from the vet versions in all the new releases (perfected versus just the regular version). Not only that, there are titles, skins, and achievements that you cannot get in normal. So for me personally, while just having the optional challenge is enough, extra rewards are common sense to implement. But as I said, I don't personally care for it.

Seminolegirl1992

hafgood wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I really doubt they'll ever make a vet overland, but if they do I think it should be tuned around the same level of VVH. I don't see a point in doing something like Crag level difficulty. That place is a total face roll for even only slightly above average players. VVH has nothing that's unsoloable but is decently hard and has a lot of mechs.

People want a challenge (at least they claim they do) so a dedicated challenging zone would fit the brief and enable Zos to gauge the interest in it. Yet as soon as I suggest this people want it watered down.

Seems to me people want more rewards for little extra work, rather than the extra work they claim they want.

And surely Crag level difficulty is exactly what's needed, let's see the harder overland crew proof how good they are and how active they can make a zone dedicated to their needs. And if they can't then it shows that what's said on the forums is all hot air.

I've lost count of the number of us that have begged for harder content because we're passionate about the story. Please don't trivialize our argument by saying we just want nice rewards. We're saying it makes sense to add it because of how normal/vet instances work, but most of us don't really care. It's disingenuous to say we only want more rewards, but my question is...what rewards are we wanting so badly? What does overland offer that we're craving juicy rewards (I swear I'm not baiting, genuine question)? I promise you it's because we want a challenge in the story content because that's the whole point of an rpg. To progress, to face challenges. Nothing in overland offers nice rewards that vet players want. Nice rewards come from trials, not overland. So no, it's not that.

summ0004

Things need to evolve with time in MMOs in particular, otherwise they get stale. So reasons and arguements from years ago are not really valid for today as things have changed so much over patches and from powercreep in the game.

If people on lower levels and No CPs are finding mobs some how difficult(which I find hard to believe from my own observations), then they need to find a way of tuning to bump the floor up somewhat and then reduce the ceiling to brings into balance.

I personally would be in favour to make it so CPs that increase and reduce damage did not work in the overland and story instances and only worked in dungeons and trials, in much the same way minor slayer works on some of the trial armour sets.

SilverBride

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

How they implement testing peoples' interest is unknown, but I suspect a pinned thread is at the very least a starting attempt to gauge it.

They track what players are doing in game. Take Craglorn for example. Even after the difficulty was significantly turned down with One Tamriel, it is still more difficult than the rest of the zones. And it is still the least populated PvE zone in the game. If a lot of players were interested in more difficulty Craglorn would be much more popular than it is.

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

24+ pages with a lot of affirmatives is telling, but we cannot truly know without more of the player base, most of whom don't use the forums, offering their ideas. If Rich came to me today and said, "New data collected from xyz shows that a severe minority of players want harder overland/story content and thus will not be implemented," I would be disappointed but at least they tried...

ZOS knows what didn't work in the past, what works now, and what players are doing now. However it would be helpful if they would address what their thoughts and intentions are in this thread.

Parasaurolophus

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

How they implement testing peoples' interest is unknown, but I suspect a pinned thread is at the very least a starting attempt to gauge it.

They track what players are doing in game. Take Craglorn for example. Even after the difficulty was significantly turned down with One Tamriel, it is still more difficult than the rest of the zones. And it is still the least populated PvE zone in the game. If a lot of players were interested in more difficulty Craglorn would be much more popular than it is.

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

24+ pages with a lot of affirmatives is telling, but we cannot truly know without more of the player base, most of whom don't use the forums, offering their ideas. If Rich came to me today and said, "New data collected from xyz shows that a severe minority of players want harder overland/story content and thus will not be implemented," I would be disappointed but at least they tried...

ZOS knows what didn't work in the past, what works now, and what players are doing now. However it would be helpful if they would address what their thoughts and intentions are in this thread.

Craglorn is no more populated than other vanilla zones. Considering that this is a hub for players looking for dungeon and trial groups, this is one of the most populated areas in the game. Seriously, it's even split into multiple mirrors.
Craglorn is a very old area. Even the reduced difficulty will not help her regain popularity, because everyone who wanted to complete it has already done so long ago.

SilverBride

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Craglorn is a very old area... everyone who wanted to complete it has already done so long ago.

You could say the same about all the other zones, which negates the necessity for a veteran overland.

Parasaurolophus

SilverBride wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Craglorn is a very old area... everyone who wanted to complete it has already done so long ago.

You could say the same about all the other zones, which negates the necessity for a veteran overland.

Yes I agree. I am a supporter of new veteran zones.

Blackbird_V

SilverBride wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Craglorn is a very old area... everyone who wanted to complete it has already done so long ago.

You could say the same about all the other zones, which negates the necessity for a veteran overland.

If it can be done fresh again, then not really? There are other characters people have ya know, and always new players coming into the game that will use it. That argument is invalid.

SilverBride

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Craglorn is a very old area... everyone who wanted to complete it has already done so long ago.

You could say the same about all the other zones, which negates the necessity for a veteran overland.

Yes I agree. I am a supporter of new veteran zones.

I am not agreeing at all. A veteran level Craglorn would still be Craglorn, with all the same quests etc., as all the zones would be. Making them more difficult doesn't change the story or the quests, or the zone. It just makes the fights take longer.

Blackbird_V

SilverBride wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Craglorn is a very old area... everyone who wanted to complete it has already done so long ago.

You could say the same about all the other zones, which negates the necessity for a veteran overland.

Yes I agree. I am a supporter of new veteran zones.

I am not agreeing at all. A veteran level Craglorn would still be Craglorn, with all the same quests etc., as all the zones would be. Making them more difficult doesn't change the story or the quests, or the zone. It just makes the fights take longer.

Which is what I personally want, and likely others. I'm sick and tired 1-3 shotting everything including quest bosses and pub dungeon bosses etc. Ruins immersion for me.

SilverBride

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I am not agreeing at all. A veteran level Craglorn would still be Craglorn, with all the same quests etc., as all the zones would be. Making them more difficult doesn't change the story or the quests, or the zone. It just makes the fights take longer.

Which is what I personally want, and likely others. I'm sick and tired 1-3 shotting everything including quest bosses and pub dungeon bosses etc. Ruins immersion for me.

This is where the debate comes in. Many of us don't want that and enjoy overland just as it is.

spartaxoxo

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Craglorn is a very old area... everyone who wanted to complete it has already done so long ago.

You could say the same about all the other zones, which negates the necessity for a veteran overland.

Yes I agree. I am a supporter of new veteran zones.

I am not agreeing at all. A veteran level Craglorn would still be Craglorn, with all the same quests etc., as all the zones would be. Making them more difficult doesn't change the story or the quests, or the zone. It just makes the fights take longer.

Which is what I personally want, and likely others. I'm sick and tired 1-3 shotting everything including quest bosses and pub dungeon bosses etc. Ruins immersion for me.

Why not a real challenge then, like VMA or VVH.

Blackbird_V

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Craglorn is a very old area... everyone who wanted to complete it has already done so long ago.

You could say the same about all the other zones, which negates the necessity for a veteran overland.

Yes I agree. I am a supporter of new veteran zones.

I am not agreeing at all. A veteran level Craglorn would still be Craglorn, with all the same quests etc., as all the zones would be. Making them more difficult doesn't change the story or the quests, or the zone. It just makes the fights take longer.

Which is what I personally want, and likely others. I'm sick and tired 1-3 shotting everything including quest bosses and pub dungeon bosses etc. Ruins immersion for me.

Why not a real challenge then, like VMA or VVH.

Already done multiple times, gets boring. Overland has much more content.

Blackbird_V

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I am not agreeing at all. A veteran level Craglorn would still be Craglorn, with all the same quests etc., as all the zones would be. Making them more difficult doesn't change the story or the quests, or the zone. It just makes the fights take longer.

Which is what I personally want, and likely others. I'm sick and tired 1-3 shotting everything including quest bosses and pub dungeon bosses etc. Ruins immersion for me.

This is where the debate comes in. Many of us don't want that and enjoy overland just as it is.

It will be OPTIONAL so you can stick with what we have currently.

SilverBride

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

This is where the debate comes in. Many of us don't want that and enjoy overland just as it is.

It will be OPTIONAL so you can stick with what we have currently.

I addressed why even an optional veteran overland would be bad for the game in post #33.

Edit: I want to add that if you want the fights to take longer would you be open to a debuff food and optional veteran story bosses? That would give you what you want without affecting anyone else or requiring a major rehaul of the game.

Blackbird_V

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

This is where the debate comes in. Many of us don't want that and enjoy overland just as it is.

It will be OPTIONAL so you can stick with what we have currently.

I addressed why even an optional veteran overland would be bad for the game in post #33.

Edit: I want to add that if you want the fights to take longer would you be open to a debuff food and optional veteran story bosses? That would give you what you want without affecting anyone else or requiring a major rehaul of the game.

Cheap solution, been through this. It would not work. We want a veteran overland, not debuff food on quest bosses. Some may not mind, but I'm not ok for blanket solutions.

Amottica

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

LashanW wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

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

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

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

Perhaps. But if devs wanted a clear definition they would ask for the specifics via mods here or via a survey. We don't need to explain implementation level details and justify our stance to other forum users as if they are the devs. I don't see the point of answering to people who make assumptions on what sort of information devs need. We give feedback about our current experience and some suggestions, it's up to the devs to figure out how to solve it.

People had issues for a long time with regards to the pains of obtaining and keeping gear with correct traits, and the devs came up with brilliant solutions such as transmutation, set reconstruction system and now curated drops (my hats off to the devs for this stuff btw, bloody amazing job ). Players didn't provide the solution details there, devs came up with it.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Is it the entire Overland or just the stories?

I will just answer this one (and it's my opinion, I'm not a representative of any form of group to say it's a general consensus ). I want difficulty of the stories to be increased (must be optional tho). Quite a bit of quests involve certain overland mobs (the ones in camps and abandoned towns, castles etc, basically overland area where the quest occur) So those mobs should be affected too. Quest bosses definitely need to be affected. I'd be very happy if the big bad guy of the zone has an instanced difficulty of the same level as a veteran base game dungeon boss (maybe HM scroll included)

I don't really care about the difficulty of world bosses, incursions (things like dolmens, geysers, harrowstorms etc.) as they are not directly involved in zone story quests. I just want to experience the stories with combat gameplay that actually matters. (30k HP enemies that do an attack once every 5 seconds and when that attack does like 100 damage, is not in anyway interesting to me)

Oooh that would be so much fun. The story boss being vet dungeon boss level with a hm scroll. An actual fight for once, easily soloable

By some, Certainly not by all and quite possibly not by the masses unless maybe the difficulty of spindleclutch II final boss. How few clear vMA is a good indication of this.

SilverBride

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Edit: I want to add that if you want the fights to take longer would you be open to a debuff food and optional veteran story bosses? That would give you what you want without affecting anyone else or requiring a major rehaul of the game.

Cheap solution, been through this. It would not work. We want a veteran overland, not debuff food on quest bosses. Some may not mind, but I'm not ok for blanket solutions.

Why won't it work? By making yourself weaker the mobs will appear stronger and take longer to kill. If you are looking for all the mobs in overland to be remade with veteran level mechanics that is one huge job.

Amottica

spartaxoxo wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

How is 'data' gathered from 1.0 relevant when we're on version 7.1? Hell, how is that 'data' relevant past the relaunch of the game (v2.6)?[/b]

Because y'all keep bringing it up to say that the data about back then is wrong. If you want to say he's doing revisionist history back then, then it bears stating that no he isn't. And showcasing the type of feedback he heard which explicitly cited difficulty as an issue.

Outdated? Sure. But that's a goalpost move. What I was specifically addressing was that his quote is revisionist.

This is a good statement.

I would also add that his data is real whereas we are only posting our opinions.