It's just the main area of each zone, i.e. excluding zones with transition screens within the zone, such as delves, public dungeons and group dungeons.Zombocalypse wrote: »Stupid question but what exactly is "overland"? For some reason my thread asking that was deleted.
Zombocalypse wrote: »Stupid question but what exactly is "overland"? For some reason my thread asking that was deleted.
Zombocalypse wrote: »Stupid question but what exactly is "overland"? For some reason my thread asking that was deleted.
Zombocalypse wrote: »Stupid question but what exactly is "overland"? For some reason my thread asking that was deleted.
Interesting. I really don't want my Oakensoul changed from how it works now though (I don't use Velothi). They could do something similar earlier in game, but mythics are always only CP 160 - which of course works fine for those like me with accounts at that level (except for my baby one).
The current situation with upping overland difficulty seems to be to make new zones harder (to the point I'm not able to get past the zone story bosses any more - which is fine, there's plenty of other stuff for me to do still). They've never indicated any interest in boss "hard mode scrolls" or a pve version of Battle Spirit (which seems to me - not a programmer though!) to be the easiest way to "fix" things for those who do want a lot more difficulty in overland), or a slider, debuff setup etc. - in other words, everything that's been brought up over and over in this thread for the last three years.
Can't blame you at all for not reading 240+ pages!
It's always nice to have someone new come in and provide consensus for the exact thing we've been trying to get ZOS to do for years, though. Just reinforces the notion that we've been right all along.
SilverBride wrote: »It's always nice to have someone new come in and provide consensus for the exact thing we've been trying to get ZOS to do for years, though. Just reinforces the notion that we've been right all along.
New feedback is always welcome, especially in a thread as old as this one. But it is not proof that either side of the debate is right or wrong.
SilverBride wrote: »It's always nice to have someone new come in and provide consensus for the exact thing we've been trying to get ZOS to do for years, though. Just reinforces the notion that we've been right all along.
New feedback is always welcome, especially in a thread as old as this one. But it is not proof that either side of the debate is right or wrong.
It's weird to hear this from you, knowing that you also agree.
SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »It's always nice to have someone new come in and provide consensus for the exact thing we've been trying to get ZOS to do for years, though. Just reinforces the notion that we've been right all along.
New feedback is always welcome, especially in a thread as old as this one. But it is not proof that either side of the debate is right or wrong.
It's weird to hear this from you, knowing that you also agree.
I agree with a slider or debuff on good faith, even though I don't see a need for it myself. And I believe that it is a small minority that wants more difficulty in overland.
I do not agree that one new poster stating their opinion reinforces that those wanting more difficulty have been right all along.
I remember taking a marketing course (a long long LONG time ago) and our teacher told us that for every complaint phoned in or mailed (yes, snail mail, I'm freaking OLD), you can count at least 100 other customers with that same complaint, but just wouldn't bother writing an actual letter to a company. I think the same general rules apply here.
I remember taking a marketing course (a long long LONG time ago) and our teacher told us that for every complaint phoned in or mailed (yes, snail mail, I'm freaking OLD), you can count at least 100 other customers with that same complaint, but just wouldn't bother writing an actual letter to a company. I think the same general rules apply here.
SilverBride wrote: »I remember taking a marketing course (a long long LONG time ago) and our teacher told us that for every complaint phoned in or mailed (yes, snail mail, I'm freaking OLD), you can count at least 100 other customers with that same complaint, but just wouldn't bother writing an actual letter to a company. I think the same general rules apply here.
The general rule also applies to those that are happy with overland as it is. For every player posting that they are happy with overland as it is, there are probably 100 others that just aren't commenting.
SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »It's always nice to have someone new come in and provide consensus for the exact thing we've been trying to get ZOS to do for years, though. Just reinforces the notion that we've been right all along.
New feedback is always welcome, especially in a thread as old as this one. But it is not proof that either side of the debate is right or wrong.
It's weird to hear this from you, knowing that you also agree.
I agree with a slider or debuff on good faith, even though I don't see a need for it myself. And I believe that it is a small minority that wants more difficulty in overland.
I do not agree that one new poster stating their opinion reinforces that those wanting more difficulty have been right all along.
SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »It's always nice to have someone new come in and provide consensus for the exact thing we've been trying to get ZOS to do for years, though. Just reinforces the notion that we've been right all along.
New feedback is always welcome, especially in a thread as old as this one. But it is not proof that either side of the debate is right or wrong.
It's weird to hear this from you, knowing that you also agree.
I agree with a slider or debuff on good faith, even though I don't see a need for it myself. And I believe that it is a small minority that wants more difficulty in overland.
I do not agree that one new poster stating their opinion reinforces that those wanting more difficulty have been right all along.
To reinforce the notion of an idea is not to confirm that it's correct, it simply adds credence to the validity of it.
SilverBride wrote: »There is way too much significance being placed on a new poster giving their feedback. I really don't think ZoS is going to take notice of this and see it as a deciding factor on how they address the topic.
SilverBride wrote: »There is way too much significance being placed on a new poster giving their feedback. I really don't think ZoS is going to take notice of this and see it as a deciding factor on how they address the topic.
You're right, it's not that big of a deal. It was just made one, through unnecessarily deep clarification and bickering.