Overland Content Feedback Thread

spartaxoxo

Blackbird_V wrote: »

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.

I wasn't suggesting doing the real VMA, I was saying a vet Overland should be tuned to those levels rather than some pushover like Craglorn. Go Big or Go Home.

Toxic_Hemlock

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

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.

I wasn't suggesting doing the real VMA, I was saying a vet Overland should be tuned to those levels rather than some pushover like Craglorn. Go Big or Go Home.

If we are going to cater to those that find Craglorn a pushover, then consider me going home and taking my eso+ sub with me.

Sorry but when I was in overland today (Auridon) the map was PACKED with people. The last time I was in Craglorn to do surveys I ran into one other person the whole time I was there. Other than the main waypoint that is where the duels were a plenty. This in itself makes me confident in the popularity of overland as it sits. Adding an optional switch is fine, but I can tell you right now I won't be using it.

spartaxoxo

Toxic_Hemlock wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

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.

I wasn't suggesting doing the real VMA, I was saying a vet Overland should be tuned to those levels rather than some pushover like Craglorn. Go Big or Go Home.

If we are going to cater to those that find Craglorn a pushover, then consider me going home and taking my eso+ sub with me.

Sorry but when I was in overland today (Auridon) the map was PACKED with people. The last time I was in Craglorn to do surveys I ran into one other person the whole time I was there. Other than the main waypoint that is where the duels were a plenty. This in itself makes me confident in the popularity of overland as it sits. Adding an optional switch is fine, but I can tell you right now I won't be using it.

I don't think an optional vet overland is feasible anyway and don't agree with a forced one. But if somehow they decide that vet overland is gonna be done as option, I think it should be actually difficult and not something so extremely easy like Crag.

DavGlen

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

In one word "Optional".

How would "Optional" work though? If you have "hard mode" enabled and have been fighting that mudcrab for the past 5 minutes, and then comes billy with hard mode disabled and oneshots your crab, isn't that kind of silly?

spartaxoxo

DavGlen wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

In one word "Optional".

How would "Optional" work though? If you have "hard mode" enabled and have been fighting that mudcrab for the past 5 minutes, and then comes billy with hard mode disabled and oneshots your crab, isn't that kind of silly?

They want a separate new instance with overhauled mechanics

Treeshka

Keep the zones likes this and maybe release harder zones, like current Craglorn, for those who wants a challenge in quests and overland mobs.

Difficulty slider is not a good idea in my opinion since it might make things complicated. So i can only suggest creating unique zones with harder enemies and harder quests to complete for those who wants challenge, and also rewards should be better than other zones since this zone is not going be an optional hard mode zone.

Toxic_Hemlock

Treeshka wrote: »

Keep the zones likes this and maybe release harder zones, like current Craglorn, for those who wants a challenge in quests and overland mobs.

Difficulty slider is not a good idea in my opinion since it might make things complicated. So i can only suggest creating unique zones with harder enemies and harder quests to complete for those who wants challenge, and also rewards should be better than other zones since this zone is not going be an optional hard mode zone.

I would prefer to have the devs utilize their time in overhauling the PvP zones in combat/lag etc. Creating completely separate unique zones for those in the 20ish% (guess based upon my guild that enjoys overland) or so that will actually utilize it seems to me to be a waste of dev time compared to making the PvP experience much more robust for EVERYONE that goes there.

Again I have no skin in the PvP game, but it seems to me that catering to only the few as compared to empowering the many seems to be a no brainer. If they want to add veteran overland as an option too I won't complain about it. But if the overland I have observed lately has shown me anything it is many of the players enjoy it as is.

Edit: a word

Buffy121

Overland difficulty is fine as it is. People who want to enjoy the storyline shouldn't have to battle their way across the zones. There is plenty of difficult content for those who want it in other parts of the game.

casparian

Buffy121 wrote: »

Overland difficulty is fine as it is. People who want to enjoy the storyline shouldn't have to battle their way across the zones. There is plenty of difficult content for those who want it in other parts of the game.

I'm going to guess based on this that you haven't read any of the other comments in this thread, or even on this page, where it is made abundantly clear that no one wants additional difficulty forced on players who enjoy things as they are.

StevieKingslayer

Honestly. I agree that I'd rather see pvp fixed over more engaging/vet overland ngl.

But they haven't fixed pvp for years. That's why Im barely in it anymore. Before that, I was in pvp constantly.

If they fixed pvp, and gave it more content, I'd stay there and I wouldn't be bothered about how overland is.
But I have little faith that pvp will ever get the attention it deserves, and got told to shush about that, so I'll move onto the the next thing I wish for. Legitimately, I wouldn't care about overland's state if I could spend all my time back in pvp again. We have a better chance of getting anything done in pve land because at least it gets new content and improvements.

Agalloch

I suggest to make something like Cadwell's Platinum where the game is played on other level in terms of difficulty.

Every char over 800 CP can have access to it . In Cadwell's Platinum everything is more challenging but also there are new rewards , new achievements , etc.


English is not my native language.

Parasaurolophus

Toxic_Hemlock wrote: »

Treeshka wrote: »

Keep the zones likes this and maybe release harder zones, like current Craglorn, for those who wants a challenge in quests and overland mobs.

Difficulty slider is not a good idea in my opinion since it might make things complicated. So i can only suggest creating unique zones with harder enemies and harder quests to complete for those who wants challenge, and also rewards should be better than other zones since this zone is not going be an optional hard mode zone.

I would prefer to have the devs utilize their time in overhauling the PvP zones in combat/lag etc. Creating completely separate unique zones for those in the 20ish% (guess based upon my guild that enjoys overland) or so that will actually utilize it seems to me to be a waste of dev time compared to making the PvP experience much more robust for EVERYONE that goes there.

Again I have no skin in the PvP game, but it seems to me that catering to only the few as compared to empowering the many seems to be a no brainer. If they want to add veteran overland as an option too I won't complain about it. But if the overland I have observed lately has shown me anything it is many of the players enjoy it as is.

Edit: a word

The number of pvp players in this game has always been below the high-end pve players. If we argue according to the principle of the majority, then pvp is not worth any fixes at all.
As for the fact that it would be better for developers to pay attention to pvp. ZoS has several teams that do different things. Pvp developers and overland zones will not deal with pvp fixes.

Franchise408

If the answer is just creating new zones that are considered "vet zones", rather than overhauling the overland we already have, I'm good with that. That was my original proposal in this thread, to just dedicate one of the 2 zones per chapter to more difficult vet content, with the other zone being standard normal content. I think that is fair, won't split the playerbase, doesn't force harder difficulty on those who don't want it, gives vet players some questing and story content that is engaging for them, and won't divert dev resources away from new content.

I really feel this is a win / win situation, and I can't see how anyone on either side would be against it.

If the new zones are a hit, then devs get feedback that players actually *do* want harder content, and the original Cadwell's was just poorly designed, and if the new zones are a bust, then we'll know that the efforts aren't actually worth dev time, with concrete, relevant data, and they don't have to continue with it going forward.

Sylvermynx

Franchise408 wrote: »

If the answer is just creating new zones that are considered "vet zones", rather than overhauling the overland we already have, I'm good with that. That was my original proposal in this thread, to just dedicate one of the 2 zones per chapter to more difficult vet content, with the other zone being standard normal content. I think that is fair, won't split the playerbase, doesn't force harder difficulty on those who don't want it, gives vet players some questing and story content that is engaging for them, and won't divert dev resources away from new content.

I really feel this is a win / win situation, and I can't see how anyone on either side would be against it.

If the new zones are a hit, then devs get feedback that players actually *do* want harder content, and the original Cadwell's was just poorly designed, and if the new zones are a bust, then we'll know that the efforts aren't actually worth dev time, with concrete, relevant data, and they don't have to continue with it going forward.

Would that mean the DLC "ending chapter zone" would be the harder content? In that case, people like me wouldn't ever see the story's end, is that right?

SilverBride

Franchise408 wrote: »

If the answer is just creating new zones that are considered "vet zones", rather than overhauling the overland we already have, I'm good with that. That was my original proposal in this thread, to just dedicate one of the 2 zones per chapter to more difficult vet content, with the other zone being standard normal content. I think that is fair, won't split the playerbase, doesn't force harder difficulty on those who don't want it, gives vet players some questing and story content that is engaging for them, and won't divert dev resources away from new content.

I really feel this is a win / win situation, and I can't see how anyone on either side would be against it.

Taking a zone away from the general playerbase and making it too difficult for them ever utilize is not the least bit fair and would absolutely divide the playerbase, if there was any playerbase left to be divided.

The only fair and reasonable solution is a debuff. I know some players don't like this idea but there has not been a solid reason given as to why this is not acceptable.

Blackbird_V

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

If the answer is just creating new zones that are considered "vet zones", rather than overhauling the overland we already have, I'm good with that. That was my original proposal in this thread, to just dedicate one of the 2 zones per chapter to more difficult vet content, with the other zone being standard normal content. I think that is fair, won't split the playerbase, doesn't force harder difficulty on those who don't want it, gives vet players some questing and story content that is engaging for them, and won't divert dev resources away from new content.

I really feel this is a win / win situation, and I can't see how anyone on either side would be against it.

Taking a zone away from the general playerbase and making it too difficult for them ever utilize is not the least bit fair and would absolutely divide the playerbase, if there was any playerbase left to be divided.

The only fair and reasonable solution is a debuff. I know some players don't like this idea but there has not been a solid reason given as to why this is not acceptable.

We have.

It's not an acceptable solution as it's cheap and will be underutilised. Going around the world debuffing yourself, while others can just press an ability or 2 and kill the mob(s) your attacking ruins this. I want to see delve bosses with 1m HP, group delve, public dungeon and quest bosses with 2-4m HP, mobs with triple-quadruple the HP, want mobs etc. to hurt.

I want the challenge GIVEN to me, rather than me nerfing myself to seek a challenge, to me it's not logical. People would just not bother, and again: others who aren't debuffed will and can ruin it. I'd love to see people ask for help and ask for help with content, rather than say "derp i debuffed myself halp plox" because people would end up saying to undo the debuff.

Nty. Veteran scaled content please. I don't want nerf food lol.

Toxic_Hemlock

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Toxic_Hemlock wrote: »

Treeshka wrote: »

Keep the zones likes this and maybe release harder zones, like current Craglorn, for those who wants a challenge in quests and overland mobs.

Difficulty slider is not a good idea in my opinion since it might make things complicated. So i can only suggest creating unique zones with harder enemies and harder quests to complete for those who wants challenge, and also rewards should be better than other zones since this zone is not going be an optional hard mode zone.

I would prefer to have the devs utilize their time in overhauling the PvP zones in combat/lag etc. Creating completely separate unique zones for those in the 20ish% (guess based upon my guild that enjoys overland) or so that will actually utilize it seems to me to be a waste of dev time compared to making the PvP experience much more robust for EVERYONE that goes there.

Again I have no skin in the PvP game, but it seems to me that catering to only the few as compared to empowering the many seems to be a no brainer. If they want to add veteran overland as an option too I won't complain about it. But if the overland I have observed lately has shown me anything it is many of the players enjoy it as is.

Edit: a word

The number of pvp players in this game has always been below the high-end pve players. If we argue according to the principle of the majority, then pvp is not worth any fixes at all.
As for the fact that it would be better for developers to pay attention to pvp. ZoS has several teams that do different things. Pvp developers and overland zones will not deal with pvp fixes.

Well if they do indeed have separate teams, they really need to take a hard look at what the PvP zones have become and adjust the balance of people working there IMO. All I have seen from the PvP crowd is constant complains and that isn't good for the game overall.

Like I said I have no skin in the game, but if the competitive types need to seek a tougher experience by going into the more casual PvE zones then maybe they need to rethink PvP in this game. Just sayin.

Franchise408

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

If the answer is just creating new zones that are considered "vet zones", rather than overhauling the overland we already have, I'm good with that. That was my original proposal in this thread, to just dedicate one of the 2 zones per chapter to more difficult vet content, with the other zone being standard normal content. I think that is fair, won't split the playerbase, doesn't force harder difficulty on those who don't want it, gives vet players some questing and story content that is engaging for them, and won't divert dev resources away from new content.

I really feel this is a win / win situation, and I can't see how anyone on either side would be against it.

If the new zones are a hit, then devs get feedback that players actually *do* want harder content, and the original Cadwell's was just poorly designed, and if the new zones are a bust, then we'll know that the efforts aren't actually worth dev time, with concrete, relevant data, and they don't have to continue with it going forward.

Would that mean the DLC "ending chapter zone" would be the harder content? In that case, people like me wouldn't ever see the story's end, is that right?

You could choose to go in if you want. It can be a separate story, like Craglorn, for all I care. But 90% of the game is already catered to the "casual" playerbase. Asking for literally 1 zone a year is not asking for too much.

Franchise408

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

If the answer is just creating new zones that are considered "vet zones", rather than overhauling the overland we already have, I'm good with that. That was my original proposal in this thread, to just dedicate one of the 2 zones per chapter to more difficult vet content, with the other zone being standard normal content. I think that is fair, won't split the playerbase, doesn't force harder difficulty on those who don't want it, gives vet players some questing and story content that is engaging for them, and won't divert dev resources away from new content.

I really feel this is a win / win situation, and I can't see how anyone on either side would be against it.

Taking a zone away from the general playerbase and making it too difficult for them ever utilize is not the least bit fair and would absolutely divide the playerbase, if there was any playerbase left to be divided.

The only fair and reasonable solution is a debuff. I know some players don't like this idea but there has not been a solid reason given as to why this is not acceptable.

It's not unfair to give 1 zone a year to the higher level gamers, when the casual gamers have literally 90% of the game.

And you keep talking about "splitting the base", but how?

You want to keep players with wildly different in game objectives together in the same zone as if they are the same people playing together anyways.

I can speak at least anecdotally that, as a veteran gamer, I am not hanging around in newbie zones to play and group with lower level players. I am either A. on my tanks and healers doing veteran dungeons / trials with either my guild, or using group finder to find other vet level players to do DLC dungeons with, or B. on my DPS in zones like Craglorn or Imperial City doing higher end overland. You will not find me hanging around waiting for casuals to ask for assistance so I can go group with them and help them. So while I may be in the same zone - at least temporarily while waiting for a dungeon queue to pop - I am effectively "split" from the player base anyways because I am not engaging in zone chat or with the people around me in zone.

This whole "splitting the playerbase" argument is one born of selfishness, wanting us vet level players to hang around on call to come and help at the drop of a hat, and then when the objective is finished, to be sent back off to our cage of dungeons and trials.

Again, it might be anecdotal, I can't speak to how other people play, but if I'm effectively split from the playerbase anyways, why not let me actually have my own zone to do it in?

It's not too big of an ask to ask for 1 zone dedicated to higher level players. I don't know why this is so controversial, because as it stands, it's typically been an MMO standard that newer expansions give content for higher end players to keep them engaged. This is the only MMO I have ever played that does not offer anything for higher level players.

Franchise408

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

If the answer is just creating new zones that are considered "vet zones", rather than overhauling the overland we already have, I'm good with that. That was my original proposal in this thread, to just dedicate one of the 2 zones per chapter to more difficult vet content, with the other zone being standard normal content. I think that is fair, won't split the playerbase, doesn't force harder difficulty on those who don't want it, gives vet players some questing and story content that is engaging for them, and won't divert dev resources away from new content.

I really feel this is a win / win situation, and I can't see how anyone on either side would be against it.

Taking a zone away from the general playerbase and making it too difficult for them ever utilize is not the least bit fair and would absolutely divide the playerbase, if there was any playerbase left to be divided.

The only fair and reasonable solution is a debuff. I know some players don't like this idea but there has not been a solid reason given as to why this is not acceptable.

We have.

It's not an acceptable solution as it's cheap and will be underutilised. Going around the world debuffing yourself, while others can just press an ability or 2 and kill the mob(s) your attacking ruins this. I want to see delve bosses with 1m HP, group delve, public dungeon and quest bosses with 2-4m HP, mobs with triple-quadruple the HP, want mobs etc. to hurt.

I want the challenge GIVEN to me, rather than me nerfing myself to seek a challenge, to me it's not logical. People would just not bother, and again: others who aren't debuffed will and can ruin it. I'd love to see people ask for help and ask for help with content, rather than say "derp i debuffed myself halp plox" because people would end up saying to undo the debuff.

Nty. Veteran scaled content please. I don't want nerf food lol.

Debuff food is not a valid option.

How do I know? Because I play tanks and healers. They are effectively "debuffed" in regards to what this suggestion would entail, and it doesn't make combat more engaging. It makes it more tedious. It takes an already boring fight and just makes it longer.

More engaging mechanics are the only viable solution. Hence: veteran content zones.

SilverBride

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Taking a zone away from the general playerbase and making it too difficult for them ever utilize is not the least bit fair and would absolutely divide the playerbase, if there was any playerbase left to be divided.

The only fair and reasonable solution is a debuff. I know some players don't like this idea but there has not been a solid reason given as to why this is not acceptable.

We have.

It's not an acceptable solution as it's cheap and will be underutilised. Going around the world debuffing yourself, while others can just press an ability or 2 and kill the mob(s) your attacking ruins this. I want to see delve bosses with 1m HP, group delve, public dungeon and quest bosses with 2-4m HP, mobs with triple-quadruple the HP, want mobs etc. to hurt.

I want the challenge GIVEN to me, rather than me nerfing myself to seek a challenge, to me it's not logical. People would just not bother, and again: others who aren't debuffed will and can ruin it. I'd love to see people ask for help and ask for help with content, rather than say "derp i debuffed myself halp plox" because people would end up saying to undo the debuff.

Nty. Veteran scaled content please. I don't want nerf food lol.

How is it cheap? If you mean the cost to implement it then yes it would be much cheaper than veteran overland, which is what would be underutilized and expensive.

Why does the challenge have to be given to you with harder mobs if debuffing yourself has the same end result?

What does it matter if others who don't use the debuff can quickly kill mobs? It's about the player wanting more of a challenge for themselves not what others are doing.

Debuff is the only reasonable solution that gives the player harder fights without negatively affecting the rest of the playerbase.

Maya_Nur

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Taking a zone away from the general playerbase and making it too difficult for them ever utilize is not the least bit fair and would absolutely divide the playerbase, if there was any playerbase left to be divided.

The only fair and reasonable solution is a debuff. I know some players don't like this idea but there has not been a solid reason given as to why this is not acceptable.

We have.

It's not an acceptable solution as it's cheap and will be underutilised. Going around the world debuffing yourself, while others can just press an ability or 2 and kill the mob(s) your attacking ruins this. I want to see delve bosses with 1m HP, group delve, public dungeon and quest bosses with 2-4m HP, mobs with triple-quadruple the HP, want mobs etc. to hurt.

I want the challenge GIVEN to me, rather than me nerfing myself to seek a challenge, to me it's not logical. People would just not bother, and again: others who aren't debuffed will and can ruin it. I'd love to see people ask for help and ask for help with content, rather than say "derp i debuffed myself halp plox" because people would end up saying to undo the debuff.

Nty. Veteran scaled content please. I don't want nerf food lol.

How is it cheap? If you mean the cost to implement it then yes it would be much cheaper than veteran overland, which is what would be underutilized and expensive.

Why does the challenge have to be given to you with harder mobs if debuffing yourself has the same end result?

What does it matter if others who don't use the debuff can quickly kill mobs? It's about the player wanting more of a challenge for themselves not what others are doing.

Debuff is the only reasonable solution that gives the player harder fights without negatively affecting the rest of the playerbase.

Human psychology. IRL normal situation looks like that: person reaches new height and then moves to the next one. What you suggest is similar to tie your legs and be happy you can move by doing short jumps. Please, understand we are also deserve our portion of desired content as anyone else.

SilverBride

Franchise408 wrote: »

Debuff food is not a valid option.

How do I know? Because I play tanks and healers. They are effectively "debuffed" in regards to what this suggestion would entail, and it doesn't make combat more engaging. It makes it more tedious. It takes an already boring fight and just makes it longer.

More engaging mechanics are the only viable solution. Hence: veteran content zones.

Tanks and healers aren't debuffed, they just aren't damage dealers. It takes them longer to kill mobs which is what some of the players here are saying they want. If that just makes the fight tedious the same would hold true in veteran overland, too.

Skeevers and cats and bears aren't intelligent creatures. They aren't going to have sophisticated mechanics.

SilverBride

Maya_Nur wrote: »

Human psychology. IRL normal situation looks like that: person reaches new height and then moves to the next one. What you suggest is similar to tie your legs and be happy you can moving by doing short jumps. Please, understand we are also deserve our portion of desired content as anyone else.

You have that in veteran dungeons, trials and arenas. Overland is not endgame content nor should it be.

Franchise408

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Debuff food is not a valid option.

How do I know? Because I play tanks and healers. They are effectively "debuffed" in regards to what this suggestion would entail, and it doesn't make combat more engaging. It makes it more tedious. It takes an already boring fight and just makes it longer.

More engaging mechanics are the only viable solution. Hence: veteran content zones.

Tanks and healers aren't debuffed, they just aren't damage dealers. It takes them longer to kill mobs which is what some of the players here are saying they want. If that just makes the fight tedious the same would hold true in veteran overland, too.

Skeevers and cats and bears aren't intelligent creatures. They aren't going to have sophisticated mechanics.

Objectively false.

Craglorn is not "just longer fights"

There are actual mechanics in play that make you have to approach a fight with strategy.

You keep harping about skeevers and cats and bears. That's not what we are talking about.

SilverBride

Franchise408 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Debuff food is not a valid option.

How do I know? Because I play tanks and healers. They are effectively "debuffed" in regards to what this suggestion would entail, and it doesn't make combat more engaging. It makes it more tedious. It takes an already boring fight and just makes it longer.

More engaging mechanics are the only viable solution. Hence: veteran content zones.

Tanks and healers aren't debuffed, they just aren't damage dealers. It takes them longer to kill mobs which is what some of the players here are saying they want. If that just makes the fight tedious the same would hold true in veteran overland, too.

Skeevers and cats and bears aren't intelligent creatures. They aren't going to have sophisticated mechanics.

Objectively false.

Craglorn is not "just longer fights"

There are actual mechanics in play that make you have to approach a fight with strategy.

You keep harping about skeevers and cats and bears. That's not what we are talking about.

I didn't bring up Craglorn but I have done all the quests in that zone in 2 of my characters so far. I didn't see any mechanics in anything but an occasional boss. It just took longer to kill things.

Seminolegirl1992

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.

We've already answered why Craglorn isn't that popular now and wasn't in the past as well. I would urge you to check out those comments because we've explained that over and over. Older content was poorly designed in comparison to today's, which continues to improve with each new release. Enemies are further spread apart, have interesting mechanics, and the storytelling/environment has gotten richer. Craglorn is a pain to traverse and overall not very attention-grabbing. A significant number of players are interested in a more difficult overland, but that doesn't mean we're just going to spend all our time replaying the same content over and over again. Craglorn is just one zone, and trials, dungeons, and world boss type fights are not something you engage in repeatedly for fun. We've asked for immersive story encounters. We don't necessarily want a tedious overland, which is what happened in the past.

Debuff, as others have said, is a cheap solution that only makes encounters take longer with the same poor mechanics. We don't want tedious, we want enriching.

Optional wouldn't affect you. Not implementing something because "it's too hard" is...not a great excuse not to do something. It would not be bad for the game to include an option. It would increase existing interest in the game and likely encourage more participation in story content, something that only increases revenue and retains player interest. Both things help the company. Long time players are the ones that ZoS earns money from. They're the ones that subscribe, buy things from the crown store, etc etc. Not just catering to people who buy the game and play for two weeks before they quit (not saying you do that, but that is a significant majority of what happens).

Seminolegirl1992

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Toxic_Hemlock wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

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.

I wasn't suggesting doing the real VMA, I was saying a vet Overland should be tuned to those levels rather than some pushover like Craglorn. Go Big or Go Home.

If we are going to cater to those that find Craglorn a pushover, then consider me going home and taking my eso+ sub with me.

Sorry but when I was in overland today (Auridon) the map was PACKED with people. The last time I was in Craglorn to do surveys I ran into one other person the whole time I was there. Other than the main waypoint that is where the duels were a plenty. This in itself makes me confident in the popularity of overland as it sits. Adding an optional switch is fine, but I can tell you right now I won't be using it.

I don't think an optional vet overland is feasible anyway and don't agree with a forced one. But if somehow they decide that vet overland is gonna be done as option, I think it should be actually difficult and not something so extremely easy like Crag.

vMA would be a nice change difficulty wise. I appreciate your input on this even though it's not something you're personally into.

Maya_Nur

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

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.

We've already answered why Craglorn isn't that popular now and wasn't in the past as well. I would urge you to check out those comments because we've explained that over and over. Older content was poorly designed in comparison to today's, which continues to improve with each new release. Enemies are further spread apart, have interesting mechanics, and the storytelling/environment has gotten richer. Craglorn is a pain to traverse and overall not very attention-grabbing. A significant number of players are interested in a more difficult overland, but that doesn't mean we're just going to spend all our time replaying the same content over and over again. Craglorn is just one zone, and trials, dungeons, and world boss type fights are not something you engage in repeatedly for fun. We've asked for immersive story encounters. We don't necessarily want a tedious overland, which is what happened in the past.

Debuff, as others have said, is a cheap solution that only makes encounters take longer with the same poor mechanics. We don't want tedious, we want enriching.

Optional wouldn't affect you. Not implementing something because "it's too hard" is...not a great excuse not to do something. It would not be bad for the game to include an option. It would increase existing interest in the game and likely encourage more participation in story content, something that only increases revenue and retains player interest. Both things help the company. Long time players are the ones that ZoS earns money from. They're the ones that subscribe, buy things from the crown store, etc etc. Not just catering to people who buy the game and play for two weeks before they quit (not saying you do that, but that is a significant majority of what happens).

Another thing about Crag's unpopularity is it's aesthetics: rocky, grey and lifeless. It's not critics, just a fact, some people like it, but many prefer more green or flashy landscapes. Though there are some amazingly designed delves!

spartaxoxo

Maya_Nur wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Taking a zone away from the general playerbase and making it too difficult for them ever utilize is not the least bit fair and would absolutely divide the playerbase, if there was any playerbase left to be divided.

The only fair and reasonable solution is a debuff. I know some players don't like this idea but there has not been a solid reason given as to why this is not acceptable.

We have.

It's not an acceptable solution as it's cheap and will be underutilised. Going around the world debuffing yourself, while others can just press an ability or 2 and kill the mob(s) your attacking ruins this. I want to see delve bosses with 1m HP, group delve, public dungeon and quest bosses with 2-4m HP, mobs with triple-quadruple the HP, want mobs etc. to hurt.

I want the challenge GIVEN to me, rather than me nerfing myself to seek a challenge, to me it's not logical. People would just not bother, and again: others who aren't debuffed will and can ruin it. I'd love to see people ask for help and ask for help with content, rather than say "derp i debuffed myself halp plox" because people would end up saying to undo the debuff.

Nty. Veteran scaled content please. I don't want nerf food lol.

How is it cheap? If you mean the cost to implement it then yes it would be much cheaper than veteran overland, which is what would be underutilized and expensive.

Why does the challenge have to be given to you with harder mobs if debuffing yourself has the same end result?

What does it matter if others who don't use the debuff can quickly kill mobs? It's about the player wanting more of a challenge for themselves not what others are doing.

Debuff is the only reasonable solution that gives the player harder fights without negatively affecting the rest of the playerbase.

Human psychology. IRL normal situation looks like that: person reaches new height and then moves to the next one. What you suggest is similar to tie your legs and be happy you can move by doing short jumps. Please, understand we are also deserve our portion of desired content as anyone else.

Debuffs have been something used to make video games more challenging for years, especially in RPGs. One of the most popular mods types in Skyrim was debuffs.

In every multiplayer game you're also running around a map with people weaker or stronger than you, so seeing someone hitting harder than you is not an issue. It's the case with every solution including a vet overland.

Not liking debuffs is purely a matter of taste (and rewards). That boss's heavy attack needing to be roll dodged or it will kill you is the same result whether it comes from a default state, buffed boss, or debuffed player. The result is the same. The boss does a heavy and you roll dodge it or die.

For some people, including yourself, the taste dislike may be because it messes with your power fantasy. Everyone's power fantasy is different and may be effected by different things. And it's understandable that it disrupt your power fantasy. However, others will view it as just doing things on hard mode.